Sitting of 9 April 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  Royal Assent
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  1. Animals (Scotland) Act 1987

  2. Broadcasting Act 1987

  3. Gaming (Amendment) Act 1987

  4. Petroleum Act 1987

  5. Minors' Contracts Act 1987

  6. Recognition of Trusts Acts 1987

  7. Reverter of Sites Act 1987

  8. Exeter City Council Act 1987

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL (By Order)
      TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

        LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL (By Order)
        Orders for Second Reading read.
        To be read a Second time upon Thursday 23 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Lough Neagh
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will initiate a study on the long-term effects of toxic waste in Lough Neagh.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): A study by the Ulster university on chironomids in the Lennymore bay area of Lough Neagh is under way. This, together with the studies of algal growth and pesticide residues already being carried out by the Department of Agriculture, will indicate the effects of toxic waste.
    Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister confirm that in January this year there was a significant spillage of a highly toxic chemical called tributyl tin oxide into Lough Neagh and that, while it may not pose an immediate threat to people who drink the water, there is a serious possibility that this chemical is dangerous to wildlife and plantlife in the lough? Does the Minister agree that a survey should be carried out into the effects of that spillage so that we know what is happening and to give an assurance to local people who are concerned about it?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there was a spillage, but as soon as it occurred my Department advised the Department of Agriculture, the Fishery Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland and the residents living near where the spillage took place. Three separate laboratories analysed samples from the lough, and I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that the spillage was confined to the immediate area where the tributyl tin oxide was spilt. There was a feeling that perhaps the Department would have been better advised to have made a statement about the spillage as soon as it occurred. We took the view that that may have caused unnecessary alarm about the nature of it. When we checked, we found that the spillage was closely confined. Therefore, the results will not affect the lough. At the same time, we are ensuring that studies are taking place within the lough to check exactly what the position is.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does my hon. Friend, with his Ulster nurture, recall that Finn McCool plucked out the land where Lough Neagh now is, hurled it into the sea, thus creating the Isle of Man, and that Lough Neagh is reputed in consequence to be bottomless? Did the studies to which my hon. Friend referred take into account the bottomlessness of Lough Neagh?
    Mr. Needham: I am afraid that that leaves me slightly out of my depth. My information is that Lough Neagh is a shallow lough, and my hon. Friend and I would not be likely to sink very far in it. I shall refer his question to Finn McCool for verification.
    Sir Peter Mills: Will my hon. Friend take account of the fact that in days gone by I have not only fished in the lough but eaten the excellent eels that come from it? Will he bear in mind that it is important to protect the eels and the eel industry over there, because when smoked the eels are probably the finest in the world?
    Mr. Needham: The ecology of Lough Neagh is of extreme importance, not only because of the quality of the eels and the pollan, which is a freshwater herring almost unique in the world, but because of the salmon and the trout. I assure my hon. Friend that I will do exactly as he asks, because I enjoy eating them as well.

    Accident and Emergency Services-
    Mr. Nellistasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the chairman of the Eastern health board to discuss accident and emergency services in Belfast.
    Mr. Needham: I have frequent meetings, both formal and informal, with the chairmen of all four health and social services boards to discuss the range of services for which they are responsible. I met the Eastern board chairman on 2 March and 9 March and expect to meet him again at his board's forthcoming accountability review.
    Mr. Nellist: Did the most recent meeting that the Minister had with the chairman of the health board reflect the deep concern that is felt in the Lisburn area over the potential closure of the Lissue hospital, which is a specialist hospital serving the young mentally handicapped, and the serious possible closure of the Mater hospital casualty unit, which serves north Belfast, which is being considered by the board? Were that closure to go ahead, it would force people to travel up to 30 milies to Ballymena or to the city hospital and, therefore, potentially across sectarian lines where conflict may exist. Why are the Minister and the Secretary of State under-funding the Health Service in Belfast and Northern Ireland to such an extent that closures of such seriousness as this have to be considered?
    Mr. Needham: Lissue hospital has had a very long life. The facilities that it offers are not what we would wish to offer to children in such conditions. The reason for the closure is to ensure that the patients are better cared for elsewhere. Northern Ireland has a much higher rate of attendance at accident and emergency units than anywhere else in the United Kingdom: 441 per 1,000 in Northern Ireland, compared with only 293 per 1,000 in England and 251 per 1,000 in Scotland. Less than 1 per cent. of the accident and emergency attendances are a, result of terrorism, which is one of the areas of concern that have arisen over the closure of accident and emergency units. We are asking the boards to consult most fully with everybody involved to ensure that any proposals that come forward are properly discussed and thought through, and any money that we may save will, of course, be put back into the Health Service.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us who have recently received his package of information about Belfast, both in terms of the good news and the potentially exciting news in that great city, are very pleased to have received it and hope that he will continue to argue the case both on this side of the water and in the rest of Europe and the world so that Belfast may continue to go from strength to strength?
    Mr. Needham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that in the Health Service we have as good, if not better, facilities in Belfast than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. The city as a whole has suffered in the past two days but, that aside, the city is undergoing a regeneration,
    438
    the likes of which it has not seen for a century or more, supported by the public and private sectors to a great degree. The determination of the people of Belfast to live through the problems that they are currently facing is an example to us all.

    Republic of Ireland (Meetings)
    Sir John Farrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what meetings he has had with the Irish Government since their general election.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what subjects he discussed at his last meeting with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I met the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Lenihan, on Monday. We had an informal discussion on a wide range of matters, including the future work of the conference. I look forward to working with Mr. Lenihan as co-chairman of the conference in the months ahead in the interests of both our countries. In addition, yesterday, under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I had a valuable discussion with a distinguished delegation of Members of the Dail.
    Sir John Farr: Has my right hon. Friend had any indication from the new Irish Government of the way in which they intend to implement the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Will he ask that Government to launch an energetic campaign to stamp out the terrorists who are engaged in gun-running across the border?
    Mr. King: I certainly received full assurances, both in the meeting that I had with Mr. Lenihan, the Foreign Minister and Tanaiste, and with the Fianna Fail representatives whom I met yesterday with the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It is also clear, from the statements of the Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, in the Dail, that the Irish Government accept the Anglo-Irish Agreement as an international, binding agreement that they will honour and implement. It was clear from my discussions with Mr. Lenihan, with whom I discussed a wide range of matters, that they recognise clearly — as is evident to hon. Members on both sides of the House—the damage that is done to the economy, and therefore to employment, throughout the island of Ireland by the scourge of terrorism. They are clearly determined to seek every constructive way in which to reduce and eventually eliminate terrorism from the island.
    Mr. Canavan: If the purpose of the so-called Anglo-Irish Agreement is to help to bring peace to Northern Ireland, how can the Secretary of State justify to the Irish Government — or to anyone else for that matter — the heavy, provocative police presence at the recent funeral ceremonies? Whatever the organisation to which deceased people may have belonged during their lives, would it not be in the best interests of all concerned to let people bury their dead in peace?
    Mr. King: It would be the fervent wish of all responsible hon. Members that the dead, from whatever quarter, community, faction or element they come, should be buried in peace, with dignity and without any paramilitary displays. Over the years it has given enormous offence to see deliberate, provocative paramilitary demonstrations of

    439
    that kind. If the hon. Gentleman remembers only the events in Belfast this week, I should remind him of the events in Londonderry two weeks ago when, contrary to the wishes of the family itself, and in flagrant breach of the standards and laws of the church, two gunmen with guns appeared out of the church and fired a volley over the coffin.
    The reality is that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is faced with a difficult dilemma. It has a responsibility to uphold the law and it is entitled to expect full support from all corners of the community in fulfilling that duty. I know that the last thing that the RUC would want to do isto attend and police funerals of that kind. It would much rather have the confidence and knowledge that those funerals will be conducted in a thoroughly proper and law-abiding way, without deliberate provocation of that kind.
    Mr. Gow: At his meeting with the Irish Foreign Minister on Monday, did my right hon. Friend express satisfaction at the extent to which the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been able to bring peace, stability and reconciliation to the Province? If it should become clear to my right hon. Friend that the agreement cannot achieve those objectives, which he and I share, will he propose some change?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend's views on the Anglo-Irish Agreement are well known to the House, which respects the principled stand that he has taken on it. I have never maintained that the Anglo-Irish Agreement could suddenly, in a short period of time, transform attitudes and prejudices that stretch over all the troubles and go hack over centuries. I challenge any hon. Member to disagree with my belief that we are more likely to succeed in making the life of both communities in Northern Ireland happier, more prosperous and more secure, not by hostility towards and distrust of the Government of the Republic, but by seeking to co-operate in a way that protects the legitimate interests of the majority. The agreement does that and it has been recognised by successive Irish Governments. Both major parties in the Dail have given the assurance that the agreement is a binding undertaking. The agreement protects the interests of the majority and recognises the legitimate concerns of the minority.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Why did the Secretary of State deliberately go out of his way on a previous occasion to inform the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) that one of his predecessors in office had wished to proceed on an entirely different policy towards Northern Ireland? What was his motive in putting that on the record?
    Mr. King: I think that I had better establish exactly what the point is that the right hon. Gentleman is making. Having done that, I shall be in a better position to answer his question.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Do the members of the Government of the Irish Republic still adhere to the view expressed by their leader before the general election, that the Anglo-Irish Agreement breaches the constitution of the Irish Republic? As that is a correct view, what do they propose to do about it?
    Mr. King: I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's statement that it is a correct view, but that view has not been upheld by any court. My understanding is that that is not the view that is held. We accept the agreement in the
    440
    spirit in which it was entered into by both sides. We accept also in good faith, and readily, the clear assurances that have been given by the new Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, and by Mr. Lenihan personally to me, that they accept the agreement as an international treaty that is binding on the Irish Government, that it is the practice of Irish Governments to honour international agreements and that they intend to honour it.
    Mr. Mason: Will the Secretary of State raise with the Irish Foreign Minister the damnable cross-border mortar bomb attacks on British troops? Will he ask the Foreign Minister and the Taoiseach whether they are prepared to deploy units of the Irish army across the southern border, where terrorists are operating in relative safety and bombing British troops? If the Taoiseach and the Foreign Minister really believe in working with the right hon. Gentleman on a successful Anglo-Irish Agreement, will he put that to them and let that be their test?
    Mr. King: As a previous holder of my office, the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with some of the problems that we face. He will know that, with the length of the border, it is extremely difficult to police or to patrol with security forces every inch or it. I am satisfied that we can look to the Irish Government to co-operate fully with us, and the same can he said of their security forces, the Garda and the army. I have discussed this matter with the new Irish Foreign Minister and I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that I shall he pursuing this matter further with him.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: I thank my right lion. Friend for his balanced statement on the difficult problems that the Royal Ulster Constabulary faces in the policing of funerals. I am sure that will be widely appreciated.
    When speaking to the Irish Foreign Minister, did my right hon. Friend tell him that it is his intention to impose on the men and women of the RUC discipline and complaints arrangements that the House has rejected for all other British police forces, and that do not and could not apply to the Garda south of the border?
    Mr. King: We did not discuss that matter. It is an issue that will have to come before the House and I think that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not pursue that topic further this afternoon.
    Mr. Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that the reason why the IRA fires volleys of shots over coffins is to get a few moments of publicity and propaganda? Is it not rather counter-productive to create circumstances that present it with three days of worldwide propaganda and publicity as a result of the arrangements that were made to cover the incident over the past weekend?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman highlights part of the dilemma that the RUC faces. It would be a serious matter to allow unimpeded paramilitary displays at funerals. The answer lies in a responsible attitude and a clear recognition that the law must be observed. If the law is not observed, and if such organisations intend on every possible occasion to stage paramilitary displays, police action will inevitably be required, and that will raise problems for the RUC. However, I understand well the difficulties present when certain people have no inhibitions about using even a dead man as a propaganda weapon.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: The Flags and Emblems (Displays) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 is shortly to be

    441
    repealed. However, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to discuss with Irish Ministers the deeply offensive misuse of the Irish tricolour, particularly at IRA funerals? Does he accept that most people find that a terribly offensive, obnoxious, cheap party political stunt by cowards who do considerable damage to the cause of unity in Ireland?
    Mr. King: The Flags and Emblems (Displays) Act has been abolished. The legislation has passed through the House, and the Order in Council has now been made.
    The tricolour aspect is clearly covered by the question whether it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The RUC did not object to a tricolour being placed on the coffin. It is the paramilitary displays that give the greatest offence and are unacceptable.
    Mr. Archer: As one of the specific matters referred to in the Anglo-Irish Agreement is the improvement of relations between the security forces and the community — and having regard to the events in the Ardoyne to which reference has been made, and which demonstrate that those relations require sensitivity and sense on the part of those under pressure—did the Secretary of State discuss with Mr. Lenihan what could be done within the framework of the agreement to improve those relations? Can he confirm a report in this week's Irish Post that the Dublin Government have asked for the Stalker case to be placed on the agenda of the Inter-Governmental Conference? If so, will he agree?
    Mr. King: I am not aware of any such request. In any case, it is not possible for me to discuss the matter, because reports are now with the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland and the Chief Constable. The matter is not within my domain, but it can be dealt with through the normal legal processes that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows extremely well.
    It is no secret that the Irish Government believe that, in the interests of the minority and in the fight against terrorism, it is crucial to take every possible step to improve relations between the minority community and the security forces. A number of aspects of that are under discussion, and I can confirm that the Irish Government are concerned about the possible propaganda use that the IRA and other terrorists might make of the events of the past couple of days.

    Electricity Generation
    Mr. Bellinghamasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his policy towards the future of electricity generation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on his policy towards plans to use lignite for the generation of electricity in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to give approval to the Northern Ireland Electricity Service for phase 2 of Kilroot power station.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): Electricity generation policy in Northern Ireland is aimed at reducing the
    442
    Province's over-dependence on oil-fired generating capacity and at promoting efficiency within the electricity supply industry.
    To this end a number of options for a new generating capacity required in the mid-1990s are being considered. These include a lignite-fired minemouth power station, for which proposals have been received from Northern Ireland Electricity and two private sector companies; phase 2 of Kilroot as either a coal-fired or dual coal/oil-fired facility; and interconnection with Scotland. No decisions can be taken until all these options have been fully evaluated.
    Mr. Bellingham: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. When will he be in a position to make an announcement, particularly about the lignite-fired power station, because the Antrim Power Company Limited has spent a good deal of money on its tender? It is an entirely privately backed consortium, supported by a number of medium-sized and large companies and private individuals. If the company obtains the contract, it will be a big boost for Northern Ireland, and particularly for inward investment.
    Mr. Viggers: I agree with my hon. Friend that the private generation of electricity might indeed be a considerable boost for Northern Ireland for several reasons—the possibility of cheaper electricity arising out of private sector efficiencies, the welcome boost to the construction industry and to the economy generally, and the impact that such a significant demonstration of confidence would have on Northern Ireland's industry. However, it is not possible at this point to put a timetable on the decisions, because they are extremely complex and involve a number of issues.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the Minister aware that all the unions involved in the electricity industry in Northern Ireland are bitterly opposed to any schemes that would lead to the establishment of a private generating capacity in Northern Ireland? They are particularly concerned that, because any contract that was then entered into with the Northern Ireland Electricity Service would be at a fixed price, it would eventually be terribly costly for the consumer. Is the Minister further aware that all the arguments that he advanced regarding generating stations could apply equally in the public as in the private sector? Does he realise that Opposition Members believe that the guinea pig scheme that is suggested for Northern Ireland would be introduced into the United Kingdom, since in the past the Government have used Northern Irelnd as an exploratory body for draconian anti-civil liberty measures that have then been introduced into this country?
    Mr. Viggers: We are well aware of the trade union representations. A number of representations have been made on the Electricity Supply (Amdt) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 that has been sent out for consultation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have agreed to meet union representatives. As to the hon. Gentleman's further points, I submit that there could be substantial advantages in private sector involvement in electricity generation in Northern Ireland. I have not had discussions with ministerial colleagues who are responsible for electricity generation in Great Britain. I am responsible only for Northern Ireland. Our absolute determination is to do the best for electricity consumers in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister assure the House that, when a decision is made between the option of going ahead with the phase 2 of Kilroot—which is preferred by the Northern Ireland Electricity Service, which is responsible for the provision of electricity in Northern Ireland—and the option of private generation of electricity by means of a lignite power station—which is being promoted by the Bechtel corporation and the Hanson Trust — the fact that in 1986 £50,000 went from the Hanson Trust into the funds of the Conservative party will not influence the decision that is made?
    Mr. Viggers: It would be grossly improper to take a decision on such a basis, and I think it is most unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman should have made such an allegation. He is, of course, interested in the project on a long-term basis, and I am fully conscious of his interest in Kilroot station being developed, which would use coal. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall give the most careful consideration to that possibility.
    Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister confirm that equipment has been purchased for phase 2 of the Kilroot station? If he is looking for efficiency, as he said in answer to an earlier question, would it not be grossly inefficient if equipment that had already been bought was not able to be put to use?
    Mr. Viggers: Equipment has been purchased for the completion of phase 2 of the Kilroot power station, but the long-term interests of electricity consumers in Northern Ireland are best served by making sure that the contract as a whole over the life of the station — whichever station it may be that is developed — is the most advantageous and provides consumers with the cheapest and most secure form of electricity. The capital cost of developing Kilroot could be less significant in making the final decision than the fact that a cheaper source of fuel might be available, because fuel is more significant than the initial capital cost. However, no decision has been taken on the matter.
    Mr. Michael Brown: I hope that my hon. Friend will not take too much notice of what has been said by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Surely the greatest interest is the interest of consumers in Northern Ireland, particularly industrial consumers, who for far too long have found that their energy costs, particularly at Harland and Wolff, in aircraft production and in a whole range of industries in Northern Ireland, are much too dear. If the private sector has a contribution to make to reducing energy costs, it should be given every opportunity to do so.
    Mr. Viggers: The private sector construction, and perhaps operation of such a station might provide economies. It is one of the factors that will be taken into account when we make our decision. Brown lignite, the fuel source, is indigenous to Northern Ireland and provides the possibility of a breakthrough for cheaper energy for Northern Ireland. Should that be possible, and should we decide to pursue that route, it might provide a substantial boost to the economy of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Archer: If the options are still to be considered and no decision has yet been taken, is it not premature and provocative to lay an enabling order to "introduce
    444
    competition" into the industry? Does it surprise the Minister that that created great anxiety among employees and consumers?
    Mr. Viggers: I am grateful for the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman used the expression "enabling legislation", because indeed it is such, broadly replicating the terms of the Energy Act 1983 in Northern Ireland. This is enabling legislation. It does not commit the Government to a decision, because no decision has yet been taken. It is taking the Government some while to come to a conclusion because we are making the most industrious effort to ensure that we have all the facts available to us. We believe that we can reach certainty about the price of brown lignite on a long-term contract, the object being to have a fixed price or a price on a formula for the life of the station. What is less easy is to fix the price of coal on a long-term basis. That is also an important factor.

    Irish National Liberation Army
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reports he has received from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary regarding murders of members of the terrorist organisation known as the Irish National Liberation Army, carried out by other members of the same organisation.
    Mr. Tom King: I receive regular reports on a wide range of security related matters from the Chief Constable. The contents of those reports are confidential. I know, however, that the RUC is making every effort to bring those responsible for these murders, and every other terrorist crime, to justice.
    Mr. Latham: Are not these deplorable gangland killings more reminiscent of the streets of Palermo or Don Corleone's New York than the United Kingdom? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it should finally be obvious to even the most muddle-headed romantic American-Irishman that he should not send a nickel to terrorist thugs such as these?
    Mr. King: It is certainly true that those incidents and those appalling murders that have been committed have given, in some ways, a clearer insight into the total bankruptcy and viciousness of the terrorists involved in campaigns in Northern Ireland. I very much underline what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Flannery: As an aside to the internecine struggle in INLA, is there any suggestion that the shootings and killings have gone up this year compared to this time last year?
    Mr. King: The figures are not dissimilar from last year. Obviously, we very much regret the level of casualties that there have been, but one must recognise that the level of casualties is much lower than it was some years ago in the middle 1970s.

    District Heating Schemes
    Mr. O'Brienasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has yet received proposals from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive concerning district heating schemes on the Cromac estate, and the Sandy Row and Lower Newtownards areas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Needham: I have now received from the Housing Executive a formal proposal to remove the district heating scheme from the Cromac estate. The proposal is being examined and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman when I have reached a decision.
    I do not expect the Housing Executive to make proposals for the district heating systems at Sandy Row and Lower Newtownards road until it has completed consultation with tenants served by these schemes.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware that consultation took place with the tenants of the houses in those ares and there was an overwhelming majority in favour of retaining the district heating schemes in their dwellings? Is the Minister also aware that there are now on the market efficient meters by which pre-paid heat could be obtained and, therefore, there would be no income collected for heat with the rents? If there is any value to be attached to the consultations that took place, is it not in the best interests of the tenants to retain district heating and thus obtain some value for the money spent on providing this heating scheme for those areas? Will the Minister rule that the district heating is to be retained, and agree to the tenants' request?
    Mr. Needham: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course, I shall take into careful consideration the points he has made. I must say that at Cromac a majority of 65 per cent. of the tenants, responding to consultation, favoured the retention of the scheme, but that was a minority of the total number of tenants. Clearly, the Housing Executive must take that into account, but it must also take into account value for money considerations, the viability of the scheme and debt control. Having said that, clearly one would like to do what one can to meet the tenants' wishes. However, it is not just the considerations of the tenants that the Housing Executive rightly has to consider when looking at these schemes.
    Mr. Mallon: Will the Minister impress upon the Housing Executive how wrong it is to create in Northern Ireland Housing Executive houses heating systems that the tenants simply cannot afford, and that the priority should be that which is best and cheapest for the tenants rather than that which is cheapest for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive?
    Mr. Needham: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in these things and does a great deal on behalf of his constituents when these matters are raised. Previously, the heating scheme that we are discussing was much more expensive, but there was a reduction of 15 per cent. last year and 15 per cent. this year. There will be no increase in the prices of district heating during the course of this year. Therefore, the various systems of heating do not vary in cost as much as they did. In those circumstances, one will clearly do what one can to take into account the views of the tenants.

    Security
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border security in the Province.
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about cross-border security.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Although there exists a significant Republican terrorist threat to border areas of Northern Ireland, enhanced security co-operation between the security forces north and south of the border will continue to help to combat that threat. A programme of measures designed to improve security co-operation has been developed under article 9(a) of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and we look forward to continuing discussions with Ministers of the new Irish Government about further progress in this area.
    Mr. Bruinvels: I thank my hon. Friend for that most helpful reply. I congratulate him and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on bringing forward these important proposals to close a number of routes on the border. Does he agree that there have been more than 12 border incursions in the past two months, some caused by poor map reading and some purely by error of judgment? May I suggest that the next time he meets Irish Government Ministers he puts pressure on them for a give and take policy because, while the closing of these routes is meant to keep our boys in, it is also meant to stop the boys from abroad coming across on IRA terrorist excursions. There must be some give and take on both sides.
    Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend should not underestimate the degree of co-operation that exists on the border. I hope that there will be a growing recognition that when security forces from both jurisdictions have to operate right up to the border, occasional mistakes must occur. I hope that there will be an understanding of the circumstances in which that can sometimes happen.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: I congratulate my hon. Friend and all concerned on the conclusion of the unfortunate affair at Magilligan. May I ask him whether he thinks that it is consonant with the Anglo-Irish Agreement that when helicopters of the Irish Air Corps come across the border, presumably in pursuit of terrorism, Her Majesty's Government find it necessary to raise the matter? Conversely, is it really consonant with the Anglo-Irish Agreement that when British soldiers place a listening device just across the border for the protection of human life, it should be necessary for the Dublin Government to raise the matter and for Her Majesty's Government to make amends? Should not the security forces of both countries make each other welcome in each other's territory in pursuit of terrorism?
    Mr. Scott: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the outcome of the Magilligan incident, where it was clear from the outset that this was a futile exercise and would certainly not achieve the aim that those who took part in it had in mind. I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) that I hope there will be an increasing understanding on both sides that in the operation against the common enemy, the terrorist, the actions of security forces of both sides operating right up to the border may result in occasional incursions.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To what extent is cross-border security being affected by the allegations of Holroyd, Wallace and Miller? Does the Minister accept the proposition that if there are any civil servants or any officers, former or present, of the security services or any persons in the military anywhere in the United Kingdom

    447
    who have any allegations to make about the programme of destabilisation of Labour in the mid-1970s, or about the campaign of terrorism against the Irish Government in the mid-1970s, they should make statements and that information should be brought into the public domain in the public interest'?
    Mr. Scott: Not a shred of evidence has ever been advanced to suggest that the allegations of Holroyd and Wallace have any foundation whatsoever. I cannot see how they can have any effect on the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: As the emergency in the Province has now lasted for 17 years, as only last night we further revised legislation to deal with that emergency, as, since the Anglo-Irish Agreement, we have sought to improve cross-border security and to reassure the minority Nationalist community in the North, and as the violence continues, is it not time that we reappraised the entire security operation in the Province?
    Mr. Scott: The basis of the security policy that has operated since 1976, with the police taking the primary role in support of the Army, has steadily reduced the impact of violence in Northern Ireland. That policy is based on the right premise and will continue in that way. I take the opportunity to express gratitude to the RUC and the Army for the efforts that they make on behalf of the entire community in the Province.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 April 1987.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later this afternoon, including one with King Hussein of Jordan.
    Mr. Ashley: Will the Prime Minister find time today to ask her Ministers to reconsider the treatment that they give to disabled people in relation to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986? Does she know that, despite the barrage of Government propaganda, over 1,000 severely disabled people came to Westminster yesterday to voice their resentment because they feel cheated and betrayed? However, they did not receive any concessions, and not one Minister from the responsible Department was there to listen to them. What kind of treatment is that?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, sections 4, 8(1), 9 and 10 of the Disabled Persons Act were implemented on 1 April. These sections clarify the duty of local social services authorities under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 —[interruption]—to consider the needs of disabled people when requested, and provide for local social services authorities to improve their assessments of the needs of disabled people. On sections 5 and 6 of the Act, which undoubtedly arose yesterday, we have said that we should like to bring these provisions into effect in time to benefit
    448
    disabled school leavers leaving full-time education this summer and we are urgently consulting the local authorities about achieving that.
    Mr. Hunter: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the process whereby bishops of the Church of England are appointed, her role in that process and the criteria that influence her judgment?
    The Prime Minister: Before my time, and by agreement with the leaders of the Opposition and the other main parties at the time, a procedure was set up. It has been honoured scrupulously since 1979, as I am sure it was honoured before that time.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall saying a fortnight ago to her hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and to the House that she saw the Cable and Wireless issue as a test case of how open the Japanese market really is? In the wake of the fruitless visit to Tokyo of her hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, does she think that the Japanese have passed, or failed, the test?
    The Prime Minister: The Cable and Wireless issue is still under discussion with the Japanese Government —[Interruption.] Opposition Members may not like it, but that is the fact. My hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has not yet returned from his visit to the far east.
    Mr. Kinnock: That does not make the visit any less fruitless — [Interruption.] The Prime Minister made it clear that we got the brush-off on all counts in Tokyo. [Interruption.] What will she do—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us and, indeed, an interested country, what she will do to protect British interests in relation to the Japanese? Will she operate fully the powers under the Financial Services Act 1986? Will she operate powers under the Telecommunications Act 1984? Most important, what will she do to turn round a trade deficit with Japan that has increased fourfold while she has been Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: In relation to the right hon. Gentleman's opening remark, he is an expert in fruitless visits. My hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made clear our willingness, if necessary, to use reciprocity powers under the Financial Services Act, and the right hon. Gentleman is aware that an order was laid for that purpose about a week ago. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed trade with Japan with his European counterparts last weekend — the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that trade matters and initiatives must be taken by the Community—and they agree that urgent consideration should be given to the issue by trade experts, who will meet in Brussels tomorrow. Those experts are expected to examine proposals put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on more effective protection against dumping of components, possibly unbinding of tariffs on certain products as a result of Community enlargement, and measures that may be necessary to avoid diversion if the United States acts against Japan — [Interruption.] The answer is long because a great deal is being done.
    Mr. Kinnock: We heard all that, but what action will the Prime Minister take under existing statutes?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman can neither know nor understand the provisions, arrangements and agreements that we have with Europe. That is precisely why I had to tell him that as a result of the initiatives of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary a meeting is being convened tomorrow to discuss the three matters that I outlined. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman of them again. The matters to be discussed are effective protection against the dumping of components by Japan, possible unbinding of tariffs on certain products as a result of Community enlargement, and measures that might be necessary to avoid diversion if the United States acts against Japan. The committee is to meet tomorrow. It is within the competence of the European Economic Community. Would the right hon. Gentleman leave the Community?
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 5 May the all-party committee on overseas development is to launch a report on managing Third world debt? With her powerfully increased reputation since her visit to Moscow, can I tempt her to undertake another initiative on an intractable international situation and to find a way to solve the Third world debt problem, as the report suggests? Could she find a way in which we may help the impoverished countries of Africa to resume growth and at the same time begin to cut unemployment in the United Kingdom by increasing our exports to those countries?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that the United Kingdom has converted aid loans to grants, particularly in respect of many sub-Saharan countries, because they are the poorest. Indeed, we have almost completed that process. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing that other countries follow suit. We are fully aware that those countries are not only heavily indebted, but grindingly poor and many are unlikely to be able to repay interest or some of the capital that has been loaned. That is why we have taken this action and why my right hon. Friend proposes that other countries follow suit.
    Dr. Owen: It is absolutely right that—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Dr. Owen rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Dr. Owen: Is the Prime Minister aware that the European Community is the right mechanism for dealing with unfair trading practices by the Japanese Government'? But would it not assist the European Community and our other partners to take firm action if the British Government would help the European Community science and technology initiative to build up our industry so that we can compete with the Japanese?
    The Prime Minister: We have proposed that the framework agreement should consist of some 4·2 billion ecu over five years. The amount of European research and development on these matters is only about 2 per cent. of the total that takes place. Many people say too easily that research and development are of necessity good, without looking at the results. The right hon. Gentleman is very much aware that we have spent a great deal on research
    450
    and development without getting out the industrial results that we should have had. It is that aspect to which we must give our attention. With respect, I do not think that the first and second parts of the right hon. Gentleman's question were really related.
    Mr. Fry: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in the Government's stand on trade with Japan the vast bulk of the British people will be firmly behind her and her Ministers and relieved that at long last the British Government intend to take a strong line? That will make a change from what previous Labour Governments have done. Will she please bear in mind in the negotiations that she has announced that there are some British industries that are particularly heavily penalised? I put in a plea on behalf of the British leather manufacturing industry, which, after a very small quota, has to surmount a tariff of 60 per cent. to export to Japan? Will she please ask our negotiators to do their best for that industry?
    The Prime Minister: I am, of course, aware of that particular industry and the problems that Japanese imports cause. As my hon. Friend is aware, if we were to take action alone, first, we should probably be taken to the European Court and, secondly, it would probably not be effective because the Japanese would just export into other countries of the Community and the goods would then have the right to come over here. That is why we have to try to get the rest of the Community with us. I believe that more and more members of the Community are willing to take action, although we often meet resistance from Germany, Holland and Denmark on these matters.
    Mr. David Marshallasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 April 1987.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: When will the Prime Minister start to treat the pensioners of this country as decent, dignified human beings? When will she stop her cold, inhuman actions, such as ending the death grant this week, defeating free TV licences and ending heating allowances? Why will she not immediately restore the link with earnings as per the last Labour Government, which would make single pensioners almost £8 a week better off and married couples over £12 a week better off? When will she stop this nonsense of saying that pensioners are better off than ever before, when it is just not true? Why will she not treat our pensioners as princes of Europe and not as the paupers of Europe?
    The Prime Minister: Our record on looking after the elderly is second to none. Spending on the elderly is the third highest in Europe as a proportion of national income. Denmark and France are above the United Kingdom. We are better than Italy, the Netherlands and Germany. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman refers to the previous regime. I would remind him that in 1979 this Government made good an uprating deficiency against earnings created by the Labour Government in 1978 and gave full price protection to pensioners. Thirdly, — [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a long question. I shall continue to give the answer.
    Thirdly, with regard to the payments for pensions and the numbers, there are 1 million more pensioners now than in 1979 and they have received the full amount. The

    451
    payments for pensions are made by the working population in this country. If the Opposition's proposals were followed there would be substantial increases in the working population's national insurance contributions. That is what the Labour Opposition are complaining about.
    Mr. Holtasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Holt: During the remainder of the day will my right hon. Friend find time to talk to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and draw his attention to the front page of the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette yesterday, which showed that we now have record steel output in
    452
    Teesside and that the workers in that industry will be receiving record bonus payments this week? Is that not in complete contrast to the report of gloom and doom by the Northern Region Councils Association? That association does not know what is really happening in the north of England.
    The Prime Minister: May we congratulate the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette on providing that excellent news. May we congratulate even more the workers in the British Steel Corporation, all of whom have achieved that excellent result. They have turned round a loss in 1979 to a considerable profit of £76 million in the British Steel Corporation as a whole. Last year the corporation is likely to have made a profit of £170 million. Most workers like to work for profitable industries and that means that they like to work under a Conservative Government.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business for the week after the Easter Adjournment?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The Business for the first week after the Easter Adjournment will be as follows:
WEDNESDAY 22 APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 23 APRIL—Debate on Agriculture and the 1987 farm price proposals on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Details of the relevant EC documents will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 24 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
[Debate on Thursday 23 April
Relevant European documents:

(a) 4844/87,

CAP Price Proposals 1987–88

ADD 1 + COR 2

ADD 2

ADD 3 + COR 1

(b) 4224/87

Situation in the Agricultural Markets 1986

(c) 4446/87

Milk Sector Reforms

(d) 4236/87

Disposal of Intervention Butter

(e) 5046187

Disposal of Intervention Butter

(f) 4537/87

Intervention arrangements for butter and skimmed milk powder

(g) Unnumbered

National Aid: French Milk Producers

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee:

(a) HC 22-xiv (1986–87), para, 1 & HC 276-i (1986–87) & HC 22-xvii (1986–87), para 1

(b) HC 22-xiv (1986–87), para 1 HC 276-i (1986–87)

(c) HC 22-ix ((1986–87), para 3

(d) HC 22-x (1986–87), para 2 & HC 22-xiv (1986–87), para 2

(e) HC 22-xiv (1986–87), para 2

(f) HC 22-x (1986–87), para 3

(g) HC 22-xiii (1986–87), para 4]

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Does he recognise the importance of having a debate on the failure of Government policy on research and development, a matter which has increasing and urgent importance because of the need for Britain to participate properly in European science and technology initiatives? This matter is giving deep concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House, as the Leader of the House can see from early-day motion 722 signed by several hon. Members. Will he now agree to ensure that a debate takes place in Government time as soon as possible after the Easter recess?
[That this House acknowledges the difficulties and underfunding of science evidenced by reports from the Select Committee on Science and Technology (Civil Research and Development), from the University of Sussex (International Comparison of Government Funding), from the Royal Society (Evaluation of National Performance in Basic Research); recognises the need for adequate provision for science and technology to advance industrial recovery, wealth creation and higher living standards in the United Kingdom; notes the imbalance in Government funds
454
allocated to civil and defence research development and relative to France, the Federal Republic and Japan the poor contribution in this regard by a number of firms in the private sector; urges the Government to: (i) maintain a better balance between the general expenditure of the state and the creation of wealth creating assets, (ii) stimulate the private sector by granting further fiscal incentives and by requiring the publication of research and development expenditure in company accounts, (iii) make greater use of commissioned research by Government departments, (iv) foster Alvey-type programmes in exploitable areas of science outside information technology and (v) make additional funds available to the Advisory Board on Research Councils for allocation to research councils, and to the University Grants Committee sufficient to meet the requirements of a competitive industrial state.]
Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a pressing need also for a debate on the important issue of launch aid for the A330 and A340 airbus? Even more, is he aware of the need to persuade his right hon. Friend to give the appropriate aid to enable British Aerospace to participate in that vital project? Such action would have my wholehearted support and the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Even before we rise for the Easter recess, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman could facilitate the giving of good news were there any to give.
I asked the right hon. Gentleman six weeks ago for a debate in Government time on the privatisation of Rolls-Royce. Since a report in the Financial Times this morning shows that the Government are not only trying to sell off Rolls-Royce for a song but are retreating from their objective of widening share ownership, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a debate directly after the Easter recess would be most timely and of great intrest to hon. Members on both sides of the House?
As the journey to Japan made by the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Minister responsible for corporate and consumer affairs, has proved to be so pointless, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that on the first day that we return after the Easter recess the Minister will come to the House to make a full statement on his trip and the action that the Government now propose to take on the variety of matters that are of concern?
Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is an early debate on the order on teachers' pay and conditions so that, once again, the House can register its objection to the impositions by the Secretary of State for Education and Science on teachers' negotiating rights?
In the light of reports this morning of the Prime Minister's intervention in the appointment to the bishopric of Birmingham, and although I wish the new Bishop of Birmingham every success in his new post, will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make a much more full and frank statement than she made this afternoon about the conditions and the criteria that she employed in making such an intervention?
Mr. Biffen: Of course I recognise that in all quarters of the House there is great interest in our national research and development programme performance. To some extent, that can be related to our tax structure; and, therefore, the Second Reading of the Finance Bill will enable some points to be raised. But I understand that the right hon. Gentleman refers to the matter in a wider context. Perhaps we can consider it through the usual channels.

455
I shall, of course, draw the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about launch aid to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. As to the privatisation of Rolls-Royce, again I must object to the description of this promotion as being "sold for a song".
Mr. Kinnock: How does the right hon. Gentleman describe it?
Mr. Biffen: I describe it as a prudent market operation. That is because I have some experience of these affairs and the right hon. Gentleman does not. To maintain these exchanges at the highest level, I must point out that Rolls-Royce will be debated tomorrow on the Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). Perhaps we will take the matter further in the light of what is revealed.
I recognise that there is an interest, which goes far beyond that of the Leader of the Opposition, that our trade relations with Japan should be reported to the House after the recess. I shall ensure that these matters are further considered through the usual channels. Likewise, I notice the interest in a debate on the order relating to teachers' pay and conditions.
I must say that it adds a handy embellishment to this pre-election time to note that hon. Members want the appointment of bishops to be further considered by the House. I shall look into the matter which has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and ascertain the most wise, prudent and conventional methods of taking it further forward.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: On Thursday 23 April, when we discuss agriculture on an Adjournment motion, will it be in order to discuss also the recent proposals by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on alternative land use and the rural economy?
Mr. Biffen: My reply must be prefaced by saying that these matters turn upon the view of the Chair. But my hon. Friend has raised a pertinent point. In truth, in the countryside, agriculture and all other activities are intimately interlocked. It seems to me that, on a motion as wide as the Adjournment such a discussion could take place.
Mr. David Steel: In view of the important meeting of European Community Ministers on the subject of trade with Japan, which will take place over the weekend and to which the Prime Minister referred, will the Leader of the House arrange for either a statement or a debate shortly after Easter on this important topic? Does he accept that some of us do not believe that this issue has suddenly arisen because of the Cable and Wireless interest but that it has been of concern for some time and has been contributing to the erosion of our manufacturing base? Will the right hon. Gentleman please arrange for this matter to be dealt with fully in the House after Easter?
I should like to support a point made by the Leader of the Opposition on the appointment of bishops. The Prime Minister prayed in aid the support of other party leaders for the present arrangements. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman convey to her that other party leaders are not satisfied with the way in which these arrangements are working out?
Mr. Biffen: I am interested to note the right hon. Gentleman's approach to adversarial public affairs, importing a degree of acerbity into the subject of bishops which hitherto I thought was tolerably absent.
Mr. Steel: I am a Presbyterian.
Mr. Biffen: I reaslise that the right hon. Gentleman is a Presbyterian. No doubt he believes that often the spectator sees most of the game.
The right hon. Gentleman's point about relationships with Japan were expressed also by the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that those concerns are felt widely throughout the House. I shall ensure that those views are taken into account.
Mr. Tony Marlow: As, thanks to the Labour party and due to the indolence and incompetence and possibly even the connivance of the Leader of the Opposition, this House after the next election will probably be faced. with political apartheid, the constitutional canker of a caucus of black Members of Parliament who are dedicated to the interests not of their constituents or the nation but of a group of people purely on their racial basis, could my right hon. Friend tell the House what constitutional preparation he is making for this abomination?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has touched on a serious matter. Many of us are in no sense sympathetic to the Labour party but nevertheless recognise and applaud the judgment of the Leader of the Opposition that black sections imply possibly the unacceptable face of ethnic politics. As for what will happen in this House, it must depend on the outcome of the general election, which is as yet not certain. On the whole, the problem in the form of the number of Labour Members of Parliament in this House must be less of a difficulty than would otherwise be the case.
Mr. Bruce Millan: Is the Leader of the House aware that it would be quite monstrous for the privatisation of Rolls-Royce to go ahead without a full debate in this House? It is no good saying that it can be raised on the Adjournment or in Opposition time. This is a Government decision and ought to be fully debated in Government time. There is widespread opposition and concern among the workers of Rolls-Royce about privatisation, including those in my own constituency. We must have a debate on this matter before the final prospectus is launched later this month, as we understand the position.
Mr. Biffen: I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's view about the attitudes of employees of Rolls-Royce to this particular matter.
Mr. Millan: They happen to be my constituents, not yours; you know nothing about it. That is a patronising reply.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Leader of the House.
Mr. Biffen: The attitude of the right hon. Gentleman belies his reputation for fairness in this House and his belief that it is possible to have two views upon the attitude of working people in this country towards the ownership of industry. I did reply to the Leader of the Opposition on this point, and I do not think I can go further in response

457
to the right hon. Gentleman now, but I will see that his views are made known to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Tony Speller: When he is arranging the business of the House, will the Leader of the House seek an early statement from the Secretary of State for Defence over an incident that affected my constituency last evening, when a Royal Air Force plane dropped a missile — happily a dummy — which landed within 30 ft of two of my constituents. I also ask that a statement should be made regarding the over-flying of areas of population rather than under-populated parts of the country. In particular, I ask that care is taken when equipment is being used so that it does not accidentally descend on the lands of North Devon.
An Hon. Member: Or anywhere else.
Mr. Biffen: I will most certainly see that my right hon. Friend is acquainted with the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller).
Mr. Jack Ashley: As the House will not want to spend all its time debating cheap party political points, as suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware that most born deaf and profoundly deaf children have an education that is so bad that by the time they leave school they have on average a reading age of only eight or eight and a half. That is appalling. We need a change of policy so that those children can learn sign language or oral language, whichever suits the child best. I ask the Leader of the House to look at early-day motion 857 and to arrange time for a debate.
[That this House believes that all born deaf and profoundly deaf children have the right to learn sign language which enables them to acquire a vocabulary; deplores the denial of this right in many schools for the deaf in Britain; notes that current oral educational methods give deaf children a vocabulary and reading ability far below those of hearing children; and calls upon the Government to include signing as part of the training of teachers of the deaf, and to ensure that deaf children are permitted to use all methods of communication, including signing, which will facilitate their education.]
Mr. Biffen: I have indeed acquainted myself with the early-day motion to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. I cannot offer the prospect of a debate in Government time in the near future, but I will certainly see that it is drawn to the attention of the relevant Government department.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 864 which deals with the Norcross takeover bid?
[That this House is of the opinion that the William Holdings bid to take control of Norcross plc is not in the best interests of the country, the workforce or the shareholders]
Will he ask his right hon. Friend to refer this takeover bid to the Director of Fair Trading because it is relevant to my constituency? That is as good a reason as any other for it going to the Director of Fair Trading. Moreover, the bid by William Holdings for Norcross is nothing but throwing paper money to get real money to destroy the limbs of part
458
of the industry; the sale will make more money for bids eleswhere, with paper money. In other words, this is what British industry has been suffering in the last few years. It is time it stopped. This should be the beginning of the stopping of it.
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend made that very clear. He will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment upon the merits of the case, but I assure him that, in conformity with normal practice, the matter has gone to the Office of Fair Trading.
Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: May I support the plea of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and that of the leader of the Liberal party for an early and urgent debate on our trading relationship with the Government of Japan? This is not a party issue in the strict terms of the phrase. There are hon. Members on this side and on the Government side who are frustrated and angry about the whole business. We should like to have a debate so that those of us who represent manufacturers of electrical appliances and such things may have an opportunity to tell the Treasury Bench what we think about the whole business and through the Treasury Bench to express our deep anger with the Japanese Government.
Mr. Biffen: I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says. I certainly accept his proposition that there is deep disquiet about Japanese trading practices which unites Members from all parts of the House. I shall certainly see that his voice is added to those which are referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the public refusal this week of the French and German Governments to deny a safe haven to any financial institutions expelled from London by the Government, and the consequent danger that the result of action would simply be to transfer valuable resources and employment from London to Paris or Frankfurt, can the Leader of the House give us all a firm assurance that before any specific steps are taken there will be a debate in the House? Could he also find time in that week for a debate on our trade with West Germany, where our deficit in trade is more than twice our deficit with Japan and where the non-trade barriers are in some respects more blatant and more cruel to British industry and jobs?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend highlights one aspect of the problems of trade with Japan which will necessarily cause reflection and debate in the House. I shall see that his request for a debate is coupled with his observation. As to his comments about trade with the Federal Republic of Germany, at the moment I would prefer our energies to be concentrated on the prospect of a debate on Japan.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to early-day motion 877 on the Prime Minister's statements on nurses' pay?
[That this House notes that on Thursday 2nd April, Official Report, column 1220, the Prime Minister said: `Nurses' pay has increased by 23 per cent. over and above inflation since the Government came into office'; whilst on Tuesday 7th April, Official Report, column 158, she said

459
'Nurses' pay … was one third, 33 per cent., higher in real terms, in 1986 than in 1979'; and calls on the Prime Minister to indicate which of her statements is accurate.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 2 April she claimed that nurses had had a 23 per cent. increase in real terms since 1979 but by 7 April, five days later, that 23 per cent. had gone up to 33 per cent? Can he tell me on which day the Prime Minister was telling the truth?
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an early debate on the allocation of British Gas shares, because evidence is coming forward that the same hon. Members who engaged in malpractices in the purchase of British Telecom shares were in the same business on British Gas shares? It is very important that we get at the truth.
Mr. Biffen: On the first point, I am not in a position to adjudicate with confidence on the figures to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. [Interruption.] No, it is all right; I have to help the hon. Gentleman. I think that the figure of 23 per cent. would be reliable and would demonstrate the clear performance of nurses' pay under this Government. On the second point, which I have no doubt was raised in anxious good faith, I understand that the whole question is subject to investigation by the auditors Touche Ross. Those investigations are continuing and I think it would be wise to wait until they are completed.
Mr. Hamilton: Read the Daily Mirror.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: As to nurses' pay, to which the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) just referred, is the Leader of the House aware that some hon. Members would welcome an early debate on nurses' pay so that the promises of past and present Governments and the promises of political parties could be well and truly evaluated? At the same time, attention may be drawn to the worrying fact that the number of agency nurses in the National Health Service has been rising, in the opinion of some hon. Members, to an unhealthy level. We would also be able to express the hopes of some Conservative Members that, whenever the recommendations on pay and conditions for nurses are received, early attention and favourable treatment will be given to them.
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a persuasive contribution from the speech that he will surely make when the debate eventually takes place. However, there is no prospect of an early debate on nurses' pay in the period shortly after Easter.
Mr. Michael Foot: With regard to the appointment of bishops, does the right hon. Gentleman think that something might be said for what might be called a "balanced ticket"—a good sound Christian to go along with every reliable Tory appointment?
Mr. Biffen: It is characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman that that is one of the more thoughtful contributions that have been made this afternoon.
Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is cross-party support for the urgent and important decision on launch aid for the A330 and A340 airbus? It is important because of the effect that it will have on the British aerospace industry throughout the length and breadth of the country and the jobs that depend on it. It is urgent because, if we are to continue to compete in the world market, and maintain our technological lead in the face of the American threat, we
460
must have a quick decision. Will he convey our worries to the Prime Minister and, if necessary, arrange a debate to build on the success of the A320 airbus and ensure that we have this launch aid as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend puts a succinct and compelling case for launch aid for the airbus. I shall ensure that those views are conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Peter Pike: Will the Leader of the House tell his Cabinet friends and colleagues that when he comes to the House in a fortnight it will not expect him to be the fall guy for the Cabinet? Will he ensure that he can say what the decision will be about the airbus, because it is crucial for the future of the aerospace industry? It is vital that we have a debate on that subject. The right hon. Gentleman must be able to give an answer, as he must be able to with regard to Rolls-Royce. I can assure him that the workers at the Barnoldswick factory in Lancashire, who recall what happened when it was privatised in the past, are fearful of what the Government proposals mean.
Mr. Biffen: Everybody who has held this position has been a fall guy; some have fallen more heavily than others. 1 take to heart the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I shall ensure that my right hon. Friends who have responsibilities in that sector are informed.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Will my right hon. Friend find time soon after the Easter recess for a full debate on public transport needs for London and the south-east, in which we could pay tribute to the achievement of British Rail and especially Network SouthEast which, as my right hon. Friend may know, has increased its passengers mileage by about 2 million over the past few years, while at the same time it has absorbed., through efficiency, a cut in the public service obligation grant of some 35 per cent.
Mr. Biffen: I am happy to endorse the tribute that my hon. Friend pays to British Rail. I am sure that he will appreciate that Government time is at a premium after the Easter recess because of the number of days on the Floor of the House that must be taken by sections of the Finance Bill. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says and refer his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read the news item today on the front page of The Times under the heading
"New plan for water meters"?
It is by Philip Webster, the chief political correspondent, who has had the privilege of being informed by senior Government sources that the Government have decided to move towards compulsory water metering. As water metering has serious implications for the poor, the elderly and the unemployed and as neither you, Mr. Speaker, nor hon. Members like to hear that newspapers have been briefed before right hon. and hon. Members, will the Leader of the House ensure that right hon. and hon. Members are given a statement on this matter by the Secretary of State for the Environment as soon as Parliament reconvenes after Easter?
Mr. Biffen: I have not seen the article, but I broadly understand its content. I understand that it refers to

461
legislation for the next Parliament. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman shares with me a profound confidence that it will be a Conservative Government in that Parliament.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I support the calls from various quarters of the House for a debate on the appointment of bishops so that one may support the appointment of the excellent Bishop of Kensington to the see of Birmingham, which has been a see only since 1901 and has had many famous incumbents? I particularly want to support the appointment of people such as the Bishop of Kensington, who put theology and pastoral care before politics.
Mr. Biffen: I warmly applaud the broad sentiments of my hon. Friend and I am certain that if eventually this subject becomes of such burning concern to the House that we do have a debate upon the Floor, he will have a chance to make those very points.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Will the Leader of the House table a motion to enable us to debate racism on the part of Liberal councillors in Hackney and Tower Hamlets and thereby enable the leader of the Liberal party to tell us whether it is his historic role to lead a racist Liberal party into the next general election?
Mr. Biffen: I am not entirely aware of the situation or of the serious allegations that are now being made. I have to say, with great regret, that I cannot foresee the likelihood of Government time for such a debate, but I am sure that, if the alliance parties have time at their disposal, that will be one of the first subjects that they would wish to have debated so that the matter can be made fully explicit.
Sir Barney Hayhoe: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern that has been generated by the decision of the University Grants Committee and the court of the London university to reduce the grant to Birkbeck college by some 7 per cent. and to give an indication that even further cuts will be made in the future? Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to come to the House as soon as possible and, I hope, make a statement saying that the Government are taking action to safeguard the future of Birkbeck college and the considerable contribution that it makes to continuing education in our capital city.
Mr. Biffen: I understand my right hon. Friend's concern at the continuing good health of Birkbeck college and I shall most certainly see that his remarks are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: When the right hon. Gentleman is discussing launch aid for the airbus with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will he also draw their attention to early-day motion 558, which has been signed by 92 Members on both sides of the House? That shows the depth of feeling, because a failure to give launch aid for the airbus could mean the death of the airframe industry in this country and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to see that.
462
[That this House, noting the considerable investment made by British Aerospace plc in future projects and the substantial orders and commitments already achieved for the A320, urges the Government to make an early and positive decision about the company's application for launch aid for future funding of the A330/ A340 Airbus project, thus securing jobs in United Kingdom high technology industries, and enabling the United Kingdom to continue in this increasingly successful international collaborative programme.]
As he has seen fit to discuss the views of Rolls-Royce workers, and as I think I have a greater knowledge of trade unions than the right hon. Gentleman, may I tell him that the trade unions are totally opposed to it because we are concerned about the security of the Rolls-Royce workers. We have already seen it go bankrupt under private enterprise in 1971 and we do not want to see a repetition of that.
Mr. Biffen: Before I get written off as a total rural turnip on these matters, I have to point out that my constituency of Shropshire, North lies between Shrewsbury and Crewe, which both have Rolls-Royce traditions. Rolls-Royce is still an evident factor in Crewe, but I agree that it is a different story in Shrewsbury. As to the hon. Gentleman's point about early-day motion 558, I shall most certainly see that that is referred to my right hon. Friends.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): May I, instead of repeating my hitherto vain pleas to my right hon. Friend to get our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to give the House a statement on British space policy, urge him to allow the House an opportunity to debate space policy as a whole? Our European counterparts—France, Germany and Italy—have expanding space programmes and contribute more fully to the important work of the European Space Agency.
Mr. Biffen: Of course I bear with my hon. Friend, because he makes persuasive requests, week after week, to allow the House to debate space policy. I shall bear in mind what he says. However, I must tell him—as I have said to others — that when we return after the Easter recess a great deal of the time of the House will be devoted to the Finance Bill and I would cruelly mislead him if I gave him to think that time was easily available for other matters.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: Will the Leader of the House take it from me that there has never before been a time when hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in aviation have seen the American civil aviation industry so worried? It is worried because it sees a real threat from the A320, and a positive approaching threat from the A330 and A340. Should we not avoid losing our lead, and make adequate and speedy provision for the building of those aircraft with a British input?
Mr. Biffen: Of course I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. I am sure that his voice will be recorded with those of many other hon. Members who are requesting a statement or debate about launch aid.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Has my right hon. Friend received the reports from the European Legislation Committee, both on the proposed settlement of the agricultural prices for the coming year and on the

463
budget? When is he considering making time available for a debate on those important issues, which affect the future of the whole Community? Will he make time available — exceptionally — for an almost unique debate on an overseas matter — international indebtedness and the problems that that can cause, both for the developed and the under-developed world?
My right hon. Friend may know that two reports by the all-party committee on overseas development and by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee are coming to the House. Will he bear that in mind in planning his schedule?
Mr. Biffen: On the first point, of course I shall immediately look into the specific matters that my hon. Friend has raised, and I shall be in touch with him.
On the second point, there will shortly be a report from the departmental Select Committee on Third-world issues, including the vital one of debt repayment. It would then be appropriate to await the Government's response and, thereafter, to decide what would be the most appropriate way for the House to proceed.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we shortly have a debate on the desperate shortage of resources for the Health Service in the country in general, and in Leicestershire in particular? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an all-party delegation of hon. Members representing constituencies in Leicestershire called on the Minister for Health this afternoon to express our shared concern at the impossibility of Leicestershire health authority coping within its cash limits? Is he aware of the problems of likely closures of hospitals and maternity units, and of the desperate difficulties facing psychiatric and geriatric units? As this is a matter of concern to both sides of the House, may we have a debate on it and some hope of action, as the Minister said that he could offer no hope of further central Government funds?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that this matter was raised fairly extensively in a recess Adjournment debate. I have nothing more to add to what I said then. I take note of the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations, and I shall see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is made aware of them. In the meantime, the hon. and learned Gentleman's most likely way to have the matter debated in the House would be to try to raise the issue on the Adjournment debate, rather than to anticipate Government time being made available.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I associate myself with the deputation that was concerned about health provision in Leicestershire, but, exceptionally, I wish to take my right hon. Friend away from Leicestershire today to call for a debate on the apppointment of bishops and, particularly, on the activities of the Crown Appointments Commission. Those activities seem to be misunderstood by hon. Members on both sides of the House. As my right hon. Friend is aware, the Crown Appointments Commission draws up a list of two names in such a way as to provide what the former leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) might call a balanced ticket. Those two names are presented to the Prime Minister, from which she must choose one.
In such a debate, I should like a discussion of the widening of the trawl for the candidates that are proposed,
464
so that other, far better candidates can be admitted for appointment to bishoprics. I am not declaring an interest, but I should say that there is a growing tendency for those hon. Members who are on the Synod to be lobbied by the former Bishop of Birmingham to appoint James Thompson as the next Bishop of Birmingham, a request to which I, naturally, did not agree.
Mr. Biffen: The fact that my hon. Friend delicately passes Leicestershire by is a sign that he believes that his seat is becoming safer by the week. As for my hon. Friend's second point, he has clone the House a courtesy by explaining the current position. I hope that the House will take this matter with great seriousness. There is no doubt that one of the effective requirements for the continued health and virility of the Church of England is that the episcopacy represent all the traditions that are contained in the Church. Whether we can contribute much to that end is a matter about which I have sonic reservations, but we are entitled to travel hopefully.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wonder whether the Leader of the House will reconsider what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) in respect of the multiple share applications, debate or statement, after he has read the Daily Mirror tomorrow, which, according to all reports, has done a trawl of British Gas? It seems that there will be further revelations about multiple applications from Tory MPs.
On the subject of greed and materialism, will the Leader of the House also consider having a word with the Liberals to see whether the burdens of high office are beginning to get them down? He has heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) about the problems of Tower Hamlets—the cutting of the education grant, throwing families into the gutter and all the rest of it. Now, according to my latest information, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), having scurried along the streets canvassing for votes and promising jobs for all her constituents — thousands of them are out of work — has, within a few weeks got herself another job — a directorship of Thornton Drummond and Brett. Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether this multiple job application is worth £5,000, £10,000, or what? It sheds a rather curious light upon those alliance MPs.
Mr. Biffen: If I could take the hon. Gentleman's second point first: looking across at him, sometimes one could forgive him for being a Socialist, when he has his back to the light. Then one realised that he was the hon. Member who co-existed cheerfully enough with the parliamentary Liberal party under the premiership of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) I think that, if I were an elector in Bolsover, I should want a guarantee that such a metamorphosis was not possibly in prospect again.
I think that the hon. Gentleman's point is perfectly valid. We need a few weeks for some pretty good uninhibited examination of the record, so that the book is known, the crystal examined and the future divined. On the hon. Gentleman's previous point, he is inviting me to set aside the professional work of Touche Ross in favour of the journalistic achievements of the Daily Mirror. That is an interesting proposition, but I say to him that the day will come—inevitably — when he will be on the Front

465
Bench and will have to accept responsibility [Interruption.] He will then decide at the end of the day that Touche Ross is probably the safest haven.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend consider finding time for a debate after Easter on the independent sector of the education system? Does he agree that such a debate is urgent in view of the alliance plans which were announced yesterday, which, if implemented, would threaten the charitable status of independent schools? The parents who send their children to the sort of schools that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) attended would continue to do so, but those who send their children to less fashionable private schools would probably no longer be able to do so. That is something that we should consider.
Mr. Biffen: It most certainly is. When I hear observations of that sort, and when I think of the days that will be spent on the Floor of the House discussing the Finance Bill, my heart is heavy. I urge my hon. Friend not to give up. What he cannot say here, he can say on the hustings.
Mr. Dave Nellist: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware of early-day motion 85 which sets out opposition to the privatisation of Rolls-Royce and which has received the support of 137 Labour Members but no support from Alliance Members.
[That this House condemns the Government's intention to privatise Rolls-Royce and would utterly refute the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement's recent statement that Rolls-Royce employees 'relish the idea of privatisation'; fully agrees, on the contrary, with the concern of most employees that their jobs, wages and working conditions would be at risk; reminds the Government that it was a previous Conservative administration which originally brought the company into state ownership, in order to prevent it from going out of business; commends the dedication and skills of the workforce, which has been responsible for revitalising the company since 1971; contends that private ownership is totally unsuitable for an industry which requires large amounts of advance investment for product research and development; re-affirms its belief that the future for Rolls-Royce and the workforce is best guaranteed by it remaining fully in the public sector and not subject to short-term yearly profit analyses; and looks forward to a Labour Government that is prepared to safeguard jobs by investing in manufacturing industry.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Adjournment debate that I have secured tomorrow at 1.30 pm on the future of Rolls-Royce will be the only parliamentary scrutiny of one of the largest privatisation exercises of this Parliament? Will he reconsider the answer that he gave my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others? Why are the Government so embarrassed to have a debate on Rolls-Royce? Is it the sweetener of £645 million of debt cancellation to bribe the way for that sale in the market place? Are the Government embarrassed because of the problems with the superfan and the rejection by Airbus this week of the engine for future aircraft? Why is the Department of Trade and Industry so afraid to come to the Chamber to listen to the voice of the workers' opposition to privatisation? If the right hon. Gentleman wants the figures from Parkside in
466
Coventry, over 80 per cent. of the work force have sent their names and addresses to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement opposing the sale of Rolls-Royce.
Mr. Biffen: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. He will have an opportunity tomorrow to make a real contribution to the public debate about Rolls-Royce. I can say no more than what I said to the Leader of the Opposition — that we shall consider the matter in the light of the discussions that take place.
Mr. David Sumburg: In the light of the local elections on 7 May, which is one election date that the leader of the Social Democratic party is capable of forecasting accurately, should not the House have an opportunity to debate Labour's appalling record in local government? In my constituency, after one year of Labour rule, the rates are to rise by 17 per cent. — [Interruption.] Is not this the true price of voting for the Labour party, and should we not have a debate on the matter?
Mr. Biffen: In the absence of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the leader of the Social Democratic party, I thank my hon. Friend for the generosity of his observations. Although the matters that my hon. Friend has raised are properly directed to me, I would deceive him if I were to say that there was any prospect of Government time being made available to enable them to be debated before the date of the local authority elections.
I return to the point that I made in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). Such debates are not restricted to the Chamber, and we are now approaching that period in our national affairs when there is a lively and growing concern that they should take place outside the House as well as in it.
Mr. Max Madden: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 874, which is concerned with the business activities of a Conservative party fund raiser, Mr. Alan Lewis?
[That this House urges the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Right honourable Member for Chingford, to make urgent inquiries within the Duchy to ascertain whether residents there, as elsewhere in Britain, have received letters from Alan Lewis, chairman and managing director of the Hartley Investment Trust, appealing for funds on behalf of the Conservative party; urges him to write to the recipients of such letters explaining that Mr. Lewis transferred shares worth over £22 million in the textile group, Illingworth Morris, of which he is chairman and managing director, to Walbrook Investments, registered in the Netherlands Antilles, a Dutch Caribbean colony, and that he further understands that Walbrook Investments is wholly owned by Wickhams Cay Trust, registered in the British Virgin Islands, and that Wickhams Cay Trust is the trustee of the Alan J. Lewis Settlement, a trust set up by Mr. Lewis, the sole life tenant of trust; that he believes the shares were held by four subsidiaries of the Hartley Investment Trust, owned by Mr. Lewis and on whose notepaper Mr. Lewis wrote appealing for funds on behalf of the Conservative Party; that he understands the Antilles arrangement allows Mr. Lewis to control the company but will greatly reduce the amount of tax paid on dividends on shares which Mr. Lewis formerly owned directly; and urges the Chancellor of the

467
Duchy to warn recipients of letters from Mr. Lewis within the Duchy and elsewhere that patriotic people of common sense would he unwise to contribute to any appeal conducted by Mr. Lewis on behalf of the Conservative Party.]
Some might argue that the salting away of £22 million-worth of shares in a Caribbean tax haven qualifies Mr. Lewis admirably as a Conservative party fund raiser, but will the right hon. Gentleman have urgent words with the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to persuade him to do what he has so far not done following a letter that I sent to him on 28 March, in which I asked him to dissociate the Conservative party from the financial appeal that is being conducted by Mr. Alan Lewis?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman, with unerring accuracy, has observed that I have no responsibilities for the activities of Conservative Central Office. I am sure that if there were found to be any malpractices, they would be referred to the appropriate authorities. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's observations are drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Tony Faye: Will my right hon. Friend support the Leader of the Opposition's plea for an early debate on the EEC research and development initiative? That is not because we are for it; we are against it. Most of my right hon. and hon. Friends are in favour of competition. We believe that competition is the spur to research and development and not EEC bureaucrats running an R and D programme. What would have happened to our laser technology if GEC and Ferranti had pooled their research and development departments?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes it clear that such a debate would be lively and certainly two-sided. I fear that I cannot say that that necessarily makes it any more likely that Government time can be made available for it in the near future. I have prayed in aid already the fact that the consideration of the Finance Bill will make considerable demands upon the time that is available for debates on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend has made a fair point and I hope that the occasion will arise eventually when it can be deployed more fully.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 758, which calls for time for Members to be able to debate and vote upon the principle of anti-discrimination legislation for the disabled?
[That this House recognises that disabled people suffer unjustified discrimination in many areas of their lives; notes that there have been four attempts in the past years to place on the Statute Book a measure which would outlaw this practice; further notes that members of the House of Lords have already been given an opportunity to express themselves on this issue; and calls for time to be found in order that right hon. and hon. Members of this House can vote on the principle of anti-discrimination legislation.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was one of the demands made by the massive lobby in Westminster Hall yesterday? Will he try to redeem the Conservative party from the disgraceful attitude that it displayed on 18 November 1983, when I tried previously to introduce such legislation? The right hon. Gentleman could redeem his party by providing Government time to debate such a measure during this Session.
Mr. Biffen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. I think that he will find that the disabled were debated reasonably recently, in mid-February. I observe that the hon. Gentleman would like a further debate, but I must tell him, as I have told many others, that there is no time available—certainly not Government time—in the near future to enable such a debate to take place.
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility of having a debate on the arrangements that may arise in the Parliament following the next general election? I have in mind the possibility of multitudes of parties and organisations within the parties in this place, which perhaps have heretofore been unforeseen. Will my right hon. Friend take into account the possibility of parties based on racial or ethnic grounds, or on any other grounds? Has he given any thought to seating arrangements in the Chamber, the use of Committee rooms, voting procedures and various other matters that may affect political parties on the Opposition Benches, especially in the light of recent events in Birmingham, which should concentrate our minds, including the mind of my right hon. Friend, on the arrangements that may have to be made after the next general election?
Mr. Biffen: Apart from thinking that the precondition outlined by my hon. Friend will presage a substantial Government majority following the next general election, everything else fills me with foreboding. The more we have factions, the more we have groups within groups —the Labour party could tell us much about that—the more we shall find that the anguished life of the usual channels will become torn worse than ever. That is something that I would not wish on anyone.
Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the terse account of the events leading to the passing of the Disabled Persons' Rights Act 1986 that was given by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled, in the "Today" studio yesterday, when he was conveniently beyond challenge, does the Leader of the House agree that in fairness we should have a full debate on these matters so that we can examine closely and precisely what was said during the passage of the Act? Perhaps more importantly, will the right hon. Gentleman respond to the excellent lobby yesterday and the eloquent description of it by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) by agreeing that we should have a specific debate on the implementation of the Disabled Persons' Rights Act?
Mr. Biffen: I happened to hear the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled in the "Today" programme to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I can understand why he feels vexed about it. In my view, my hon. Friend made a most impressive contribution to the debate. I fully understand those who would wish to see the debate carried forward in the Chamber in the near future. It is a request that I shall bear in mind, but given the responsibilities that oblige me to make provision for the Finance Bill, there is no prospect of such a debate early on in Government time.
Mr. Peter Shore: When the Leader of the House reports to the Prime Minister on the exchanges concerning the appointment of bishops, will

469
he assure her that there is a very strong view that Birmingham's loss is Stepney's gain — particularly at a time when strong moral leadership is needed to denounce the un-Christian, wretched and discriminatory policies imposed on helpless people who are homeless, and who are now to be evicted by the Liberal council in the borough?
Mr. Biffen: It was a very neat piece of elastic work to embrace so many concepts within one contribution. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks deserve consideration on that account alone, and they will of course be referred to the Prime Minister.

Helicopter Orders
4.20 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the future defence requirement for support helicopters and the orders that I intend to place with Westland plc.
The services possess a number of different types of helicopter capable of transporting troops and undertaking logistic and other tasks: Chinooks, Puma, Sea King, Wessex and Lynx. A key task is to support our Army in Germany, for which—in addition to Lynx of the Army Air Corps — Chinook and Puma helicopters are currently assigned. There is also a wide range of other deployments worldwide.
Until 1985, it was envisaged that both RAF Puma and Wessex support helicopters would be replaced one-for-one by a helicopter of similar size. That approach, however, came increasingly into question as a result of trials conducted by 6 Airmobile Brigade that suggested a requirement for an increased number of larger helicopters. A comprehensive review of the requirement for support helicopters in all roles well into the next century was therefore set in hand.
That work showed the need for additional large helicopters in the central region, capable of lifting a platoon—that is, about 30 men and their equipment—or a substantial logistic load. Those large helicopters, together with some Lynx battlefield helicopters, would enable the Army to provide an airmobile capability and thereby enhance our defence contribution in Germany.
The choice for the large helicopter lies between additional Chinooks, which are already in service in Germany, and the introduction of a utility version of the Anglo-Italian EH101 helicopter, which is due to enter service in the naval version in the early 1990s. The Government have decided that the right choice is to introduce the utility EH101 to meet that requirement. The choice will build on the investment that we have already made in the naval version, and reflects our policy on European helicopter collaboration.
We have at the same time reviewed the case for continued British participation in the NH90 collaborative helicopter project beyond the study phase that was recently completed. NH90 is a smaller helicopter than EH101, and will be available later. With the decision that we have now reached on the future composition of our support helicopter force, we no longer have an early requirement for a helicopter in the NH90 class, nor is there the money to fund both participation in the NH90 definition and development programme — which is due to begin soon — and an early purchase of other helicopters. We are therefore informing our partners that we do not intend to proceed to the next stage of the NH90 project.
In reaching a decision on the choice between alternative support helicopters, and particularly on the timing of orders, I have had much in mind the work load at Westland Helicopters, until work builds up on the naval version of the EH101. Subject to satisfactory resolution of the contractual and other issues with the companies concerned and our Italian partners, we intend to place an order for an initial batch of 25 utility EH101s for delivery in the early 1990s. I also intend—subject to satisfactory

471
contractual negotiations—to order a further 16 Lynx helicopters for the support of airmobile operations. The cost of the orders—which have a total value well in excess of £300 million — will be contained within the overall public expenditure planning totals. They are in addition to an order already announced for a further seven Sea King helicopters for the Royal Navy, which I hope to place soon, following the completion of contractual negotiations.
Those orders are also in addition to the continuing defence work for Westland in support of the services' existing helicopter fleet; to earlier Sea King and Lynx orders already announced; to the very large and challenging naval EH101 programme, for which we plan an initial order of 50 helicopters; and to the first stage of a new light attack helicopter. The package that I am announcing will sustain a British helicopter industry capable of meeting the demanding requirements of the services into the 1990s and beyond.
Mr. Denzil Davies: The right hon. Gentleman's statement, although extensively trailed, will nevertheless come as a blow both to Britain's armed forces and—perhaps more strongly—to the helicopter business of Westland, and those who work in that business.
Our armed forces now have fewer helicopters than they had 10 years ago—at a time when the Americans and, more important, the Russians, are building up their own military helicopter fleets. The order will not make up for that deficiency, especially in battlefield helicopters on the central front; it will not safeguard the future of Britain's helicopter industry; and it will not preserve jobs in that industry.
First, does not the statement prove that those of us—including the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)— who argued that the Sikorsky solution was no solution, and that British participation in the NH90 project would not survive the Sikorsky project, were correct? Was not the Prime Minister wrong about that?
Secondly, is it not the case that, although the French and German partners were informed about the NH90 some time ago, our Italian partners in the EH101 project were not told? If that is so, is it not an insult to our partners in the project?
Thirdly, will the Secretary of State confirm that at least 2,000 direct jobs in Westland, as well as indirect jobs, will be lost, and that one factory is likely to close down in its entirety?
The Secretary of State mentioned contractual arrangements. Can he say when Westland will receive a bankable contract under those arrangements? He also mentioned that more than £300 million would be found within the public expenditure planning totals. Will he explain that? Will the money come out of the existing defence budget totals, and, if so, where will cuts be made to provide it?
Finally, will the Secretary of State tell the House how much of that £300 million will leave the defence budget during this financial year to satisfy all the orders that he announced?
Mr. Younger: I am very surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's response. If, as he says, the announcement will be a blow to the company, will not safeguard industry and is a disaster generally, I cannot imagine what an announcement that no helicopters were being ordered would have meant.
472
As the right hon. Gentleman can see, this is a very large order, and it will be extremely helpful to the company. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the company is issuing a statement this afternoon, in which it welcomes my statement.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that all the partners have been informed at the same time; none were informed before the others. I have written to all of them.
I hope that the contract will he concluded after the appropriate negotiations have taken place. That always takes some time.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the relationship with the Sikorsky deal. I assure him that there is no connection of any kind between the ownership arrangements for Westland and the need or otherwise to order the NH90. The simple reason, which I gave in my statement, is that we have no requirement for more helicopters of the size of the NH90, and it would therefore seem somewhat strange to continue with the programme officially when there are many other uses for funds. As for funds, the cost of the orders that I have announced today will come from within the defence budget, except that for the 60 Lynx helicopters there will be an addition to the defence budget to help with the cost. I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman offhand how much of the cost will fall on this year's budget, but it will not be very much.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Having pressed so very hard and for so very long for these orders, I welcome them, but is it not outrageous that at this very moment Westland is announcing the closure of its factory in Weston-super-Mare? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that from now on the existing Ministry of Defence fleet of Westland helicopters will have satisfactory spare parts and customer support operations, without the skilled help of my constituents?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome of the announcement, but I absolutely appreciate the extremely sad effect that it must have had on him and his constituents, which I greatly regret. I pass on my sympathy to those concerned for what to them must be a very unhappy announcement. As for the provision of spare parts and customer support operations, I am assured by the company that any restructuring that it carries out will safeguard its ability to service and support all the Westland helicopters that are in service with the forces. These orders will also enable the company as a whole to look to the future, to restructure itself and to be a thoroughly sound and effective company, with what will be a very large order book. I assure my hon. Friend that the difficulties that undoubtedly will follow in some parts of the company, including that part of it which is in his constituency, will be very much in our minds and that if we can help in any way we shall do so.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Secretary of State will recognise that this will be bitter news for the Westland work force and for the community, who now will have to pay in jobs for the mismanagement of this sad and sorry affair.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman backed it.
Mr. Ashdown: The Sikorsky deal had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Does the Secretary of State not agree that if the company had been in the hands of the consortium that was

473
proposed by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) it would have been in an immeasurably worse position than it is in today and that its future viability might have been threatened? The NH90 decision was not taken as a result of Sikorsky but because this Government wished to withdraw from the European consortium. Is it not also the case that the British Army asked for more helicopters than the Secretary of State has provided to fulfil its tactical roles in Europe? Is not this, therefore, a case of the Government's short-term vision damaging the country's long-term perspectives?
Mr. Younger: I cannot agree with all that the hon. Gentleman said. Of course this must be extremely unhappy news for those who may find that they lose their jobs at Westland, but it is very good news for the company as a whole and for those who will continue to work for it. It gives the company a firm base on which to plan for the future. I respectfully suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he ought to bear in mind that he has a large number of constituents whose jobs will be secured by this announcement. They will welcome it.
Of course the hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to say that the question of who owns Westland has nothing to do with going on with the NH90. The careful staff studies we have made show that we do not require more helicopters of that size. If we required them, we would be ordering some. As we do not require them, it does not seem to be reasonable to spend limited defence funds on a product that we do not intend to order. It is not the case that we have been asked for more than has been provided. The services and Westland will be very glad to have a large order for the EH101 utility version, which I hope will be a very successful helicopter for many years to come.
Sir Antony Buck: Will my right hon. Friend reiterate for the benefit of Opposition Members that what he has just announced shows that we have laid a firm foundation for the continuation of a prosperous helicopter industry in this country, and will he say a word about the export potential of the types of helicopter that he has mentioned?
Mr. Younger: I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. He is quite correct. This is the type of announcement for which the company has been calling. It has told me continually that it wants to know what helicopters the Ministry of Defence wants so that it can sort out the restructuring of the company. The orders that I have announced for the EH101 — the naval and utility version — the Lynx and the Sea King amount to no fewer than 98 helicopters. In addition, 12 helicopters are now under construction. In the face of that, anybody who says that the Government have not done their utmost to give the company a good, secure sign for the future is running the risk of making himself look very foolish indeed.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that despite the long delay and the orders that have now been announced, we shall still be 50 per cent. short? It reminds me a little of 1939, when we had the appropriate aircraft but not enough of them. The right hon. Gentleman ought to bear that in mind. Will he take it from me that unless there is collaboration with Europe
474
we shall lose face? If he cannot proceed with helicopter collaboration, will he urge on his right hon. Friend the need to proceed with the A330 and the A340 venture so that at least some of the face that we have lost in Europe will be restored?
Mr. Younger: The latter point is of course a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, and I am sure that he will have noted what the hon. Gentleman said. As for the provision of helicopters, when these orders are eventually completed there is no doubt that the British services will be extremely well equipped with helicopters. What is more, the helicopters that they will have will be modern and up to date. I hope that in consequence Westland will be able to sell some of them abroad. It ought to be able to do so, with the boost of the British Government having placed orders for them.
Sir Edward du Cann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ending of this long period of uncertainty will be warmly welcomed by the company, by those who work in it, including a number of my constituents, and by the armed services? Is he further aware that the company very badly needs additional orders, despite the fact that his announcement, together with past announcements, means that it is already in receipt of the largest volume of orders that it has ever had in its history? Will he take note of the general feeling that there undoubtedly is in the House that, since the helicopter is a new weapon of war that has been proved both at sea and on land, further attention has to be given to its development, which means further orders in the years to come?
Mr. Younger: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, whose knowledge of these matters goes back further than that of most right hon. and hon. Members. I am sure he is right to say that, above all, the company will be glad that the uncertainty under which it has been labouring has been removed. The company has a short-term problem, to which reference has been made in some of the recent statements, but there is no doubt that in the long term Westland has a very large order book. I am sure that all those who live in the west country will be extremely glad to know that it will be a major force in Europe's helicopter industry for a long time to come.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Does the Secretary of State accept that there will be a void when orders run out between 1988 and 1992 and that today's announcement represents only a drop in the ocean? It will not fill the gap. Although it is welcome, the announcement will not save jobs. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House just how many people will lose their jobs and whether the plant at Weston-super-Mare is to close? It is all right for the right hon. Gentleman to say that Sikorsky is not involved, but where are all the orders that it promised to fill the gap? Does it not mean that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was right to propose the European consortium? He resigned over it. As the present Secretary of State has failed to fill the gap, will he also resign and go to the Back Benches?
Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman's long supplementary was a little contradictory. He is right when he says that there is a short-term gap. Therefore I am glad that to some extent we have been able to fill it with the Lynx order and by bringing forward, as far as we possibly can, the order for the utility EH101s. As for the loss of jobs and

475
the possible closure of any of the Westland factories, that is very much a matter for the company. It has been asking us to let it know where we stand so that it can work out the correct disposition of its resources. That will be for the company to decide and to announce. It is no part of my responsibility as to whether or not Sikorsky takes further business to Westland, but I am sure that Sikorsky has a genuine interest in the company and will do what it can to help. It is not the case, with respect, that the orders I have announced today can be described as non-European. All of them are European collaborative projects: the EH101 with Italy and the Agusta light attack helicopter, also with Italy. That is very good European collaboration and does not bear any of the construction that the hon. Gentleman placed upon it.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scale of the Government's contribution is indeed welcome in safeguarding this country's only helicopter manufacturer? That welcome is tinged with some regret because, yet again, in the eyes of our European partners, this country is seen as pulling out of a collaborative project. Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of the responsibility for the work force's disappointment and the redundancies rest on the exaggerated expectations that it was led to have by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) when he so enthusiastically endorsed the prospects for the sale of the Black Hawk? Clearly that has not, come about. Has Sikorsky put any orders to Westland for the Black Hawk? Have any Black Hawks been sold?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right that the scale of the orders will be helpful to the company — indeed, the company has said so in its statement today. I also agree with my hon. Friend that there will undoubtedly be regret that we have decided not to proceed with the next phase of the NH90 collaborative project. I also believe that that decision will be understood. There are not many countries that are prepared to carry on with a collaborative project when they have no prospect of ordering any of the aircraft that might come out of it. I believe that that is a reasonable proposition.
I am not sure about the exaggerated expectations raised, if they were, by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) about these matters. It is a pity if such expectations were raised. However, I do not believe the question of the Sikorsky Black Hawk is relevant to these considerations——
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Nobody wants it.
Mr. Younger: I am assured by the company that, even supposing there were orders for the Black Hawk, it would not produce any work for the company for about five years. It is not in five years hence that Westland will have a problem, but in the next two years. Therefore, whether the Black Hawk is a desirable development or not, it is not a solution for the short-term problem at Westland.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: It was on 18 November 1985, long before any political difficulties, that I was shown round the Yeovil plant by Captain Gueterbock and trade unionists. Did the Secretary of State know that there were political overtones and political associations? That was the view of one of the Westland executives on the radio yesterday morning. Cannot such problems he exorcised only by the truth?
476
What is the Government's view of the "World in Action" one-hour programme on Westland? If that programme is not representative and a fair reflection of the truth should not the Government ask for an apology from Granada Television? If it is the truth does it not reveal the sheer depth of the Prime Minister's deception of Parliament on this matter? After all——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must rephrase that please—nobody deliberately deceives anyone in this House.
Mr. Dalyell: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I am not—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please do not challenge the Chair on that. Please withdraw and rephrase the question.
Mr. Dalyell: This is a fair reflection, Mr. Speaker, of a programme that 8 million people have seen.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced parliamentarian. I am asking him please to withdraw that comment and rephrase his question.
Mr. Dalyell: The programme says that the Prime Minister must have known the role of the——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are dealing with some new orders that have been given to Westland today, not with a television programme.
Mr. Dalyell: I am sorry. A senior executive of that company has said on radio that this is one of the problems——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not mind about that, but I must ask the hon. Gentleman please to withdraw what he said about deliberate deception and rephrase his question.
Mr. Dalyell: I am sorry, but this is a fair precis of a programme that 8 million people have seen——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not concerned with the programme or what was on it, but I am asking the hon. Gentleman to do what I have asked and I urge him to do that.
Mr. Dalyell: Well, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: No.
Mr. Dalyell: A Member of Parliament——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules of the House as well as anyone. Please will he rephrase his question.
Mr. Dalyell: There is no way of rephrasing it honestly. The fact is that——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that if he does not rephrase his question I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
Mr. Dalyell rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has heard what I have said.
Mr. Dalyell: Then, frankly, I think that the only reasonable thing to do is for me to withdraw.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I say to my right hon. Friend how warmly I applaud his decision to procure the utility version of the EH101. In so doing will it not also enhance the potential civil sales of the

477
aeroplane, as the transport variant can, as he has demonstrated, be developed more quickly than the naval variant? Can my right hon. Friend also tell the House whether the EH101 is to be powered by the Anglo-French RTM322 engine into which the Government have put funds? Last, but not least, will the EH101 be flown by the Royal Air Force as would be normal in the circumstances?
Mr. Younger: On the last point, I assure my hon. Friend that that will be the case. There are discussions on those matters, but no change is contemplated at the present time. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about applauding the order for the EH101 utility version. He is absolutely right that this is an aircraft that should have a good civilian market. I attended its roll-out earlier this week and saw the initital civilian version of this aircraft. It looks an extremely attractive buy and I hope that it will do well. There are still discussions going on as to which precise engine will be used in this aircraft and it is not yet decided whether it will be the the RTM322. However, I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in that.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Given the battle that was fought in the Tory party over the Westland workers and the fact that the solution that won that battle has not offered long-term security for the jobs of those who work in the Westland company, is not early-day motion 317, which I tabled 15 months ago, ever more urgent today? It called for the public ownership and the integration of Westland into the rest of the aerospace sector.
Given the present urgency, for example, for the airlifting of grain to famine-stricken areas of the world — [Interruption.] Why is the Secretary of State prepared to come to the Dispatch Box today and witness the destruction of a further 2,000 jobs in that industry? Those workers will take no comfort from his synthetic sympathy this afternoon or from his promises for future job security. They heard all that last year.
Mr. Younger: We are very grateful to have that contribution from the hon. Gentleman, from the depth of his roots in the west country. Those roots are very apparent. I do not agree that this does not give long-term security to the employees of Westland. I understand from the company that there may be some who will lose their jobs—that is extremely regrettable. But this announcement does give some long-term security to the company in the future and, as I said, it has a large order book stretching well through the 1990s.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of the public ownership of Westland — I think that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will agree with me— if there is any cause that would have absolutely unaminous support in the west country, it would be opposition to a proposal of public ownership of Westland. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is out on a limb there.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: As someone representing an area significantly affected by this statement, I thank my right hon. Friend for the positive way in which he has responded to representations made to him about the need for some additional helicopter orders to see the company through the two-year revenue gap between 1988 and 1990.
478
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the job losses announced today by the company are highly regrettable? However, is he aware that the company has confirmed that many of the redundancies would have happened anyway? Is it not highly irresponsible and untrue for Opposition Members to try to lay all the blame at the Government's door? In fact, the additional orders that my right hon. Friend has announced today are a significant help to that company.
Mr. Younger: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I can certainly say, as he said, that all the representations that I have had from Members of Parliament who represent people in that part of the country which Westland covers have been extremely effective. People have been very diligent in letting me know the needs of the company. I am grateful to all of them. The answer to my hon. Friend's second point is contained in statement that the company issued this afternoon. It says:
"It should be noted some further reduction in the size of the workforce would have had to take place under any order secenario to improve competitiveness."
I think that that is the answer my hon. Friend is seeking.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: But, on the other hand, one of those workers who has lost his job as a result of the company's statement might have a different story to tell. The chances are that that person, or one of the 1,000 or 1,200 people who have been put on the scrap heap, might well say that, 12 months ago, it was the Labour Opposition who were correct in their stance in trying to ensure that the operation was carried out in a different fashion.
Mr. Ashdown: Seventeen hundred to one.
Mr. Skinner: They might well conclude that the Liberal spokesman, Mr. Paddy Backdown, who is currently heckling, has got it wrong again, and that the Sikorsky plan has now bitten the dust. Some of those workers on the dole might well say that once more here is another example of Britian's manufacturing base being reduced. No wonder the Japanese are laughing all the way to the bank. There is only one person in Britain laughing more than the Japanese, and that is the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine).
Mr. Younger: I am not sure that the view from Bolsover is any more convincing than the view from Coventry. I prefer the view from the west country, which will be relieved to have a clear indication about the future of Westland. That will be much more welcome to people in the west country than the sort of political nonsense that others are producing.
Mr. James Couchman: I visited Westland in September and heard then from senior executives. We have heard again since that time that the company's greatest worry was the gap in orders that it had coming up in two years' time. Today's news will come as a profound relief to the company. Can my right hon. Friend say whether our Italian collaborators in this project are likely to accelerate the ordering of their requirements for the EH101, and can he say a little more about the hope for export orders for the EH101?
Mr. Younger: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. He is absolutely right. The really critical matter is the short-term gap over the next two years in the Westland work load. I hope the House will feel that I have

479
certainly done everything I possibly can to help about that, although. unfortunately, it was not possible altogether to eliminate that gap.
My hon. Friend asked about export orders. It can only be helpful that there has been a successful roll-out of the new aeroplane and that the first orders placed for it are from the British Government. Such orders are always the first catalyst in getting orders from overseas. I very much hope that that is what will now ensue.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: I will call the four hon. Members who are standing and then the Opposition Front Bench. After that we must move on.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Although the Department has taken rather a long time to produce the statement, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the realism that it contains. He mentioned the Chinook support helicopter. Is he satisfied about the safety of that helicopter, bearing in mind recent incidents in the North sea and in the Falklands? Can he give us an assurance that the tremendous work of supporting and upgrading the fleet of helicopters owned by his Department will be generously shared with private enterprise?
Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. My hon. Friend asked about the Chinook helicopters that we have in service with the armed forces. I can assure him that we take the greatest care to investigate most carefully all the incidents that have taken place. Although we have not yet had complete conclusions about those, and certainly not about the regrettable recent incident in the Falklands, inquiries are continuing. I assure him that the Chinooks involved were of a different type from that which was involved in another recent incident in the Shetlands. That is why it is taking longer to work out the precise cause.
In terms of the general ordering of helicopters, my hon. Friend is correct in his assessment that what we really need is some certainty for the future.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, while the orders that he has announced will be important in leading to future security for Westland, they are, perhaps, of even greater importance in securing the future of the subsidiaries of Westland. FPT in Portsmouth, for example, has succeeded in selling components to aircraft and helicopter manufacturers in the United States and the health of that company depends very much on the long-term success of Westland itself.
Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. The success of subsidiaries depends upon the health of the parent company and subsidiaries of Westland must at least be assisted by today's announcement. Of course, it is for Westland to decide the future work load for any subsidiaries. My hon. Friend is quite right in looking for future security as the most important matter. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members asked about the future servicing by Westland of the existing helicopter fleet. The company will be reorganising itself with the full intention of carrying on the excellent service that it presently gives.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: What will be the implications of my right hon. Friend's statement for the contractors and potential contractors of
480
Westland? Will he confirm that his statement means that Britain will have a sustained helicopter industry well into the next century?
Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend's first point is very much a matter for Westland, now that it knows the ordering position. In answer to my hon. Friend's second question, there is no doubt that after the first difficult year or two of a gap in orders, Westland now has a very large order book with orders amounting to many hundreds of millions of pounds. That is a good long-term prospect for the employees of Westland and for the communities in which they live.
Mr. Neil Thorne: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement and its commitment to British jobs in the helicopter industry, may I ask him whether he can assure the House that this will also lead to a substantial number of jobs being generated in the British electronic and communications industries, and that orders for such products resulting from these contracts will not go to foreign companies?
Mr. Younger: I do not expect that Westland will in any way change its normal practice which, I think, is always to give the maximum participation to contractors with which the company has done business in the past.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Eighteen months ago we had the high drama of Westland, and today we have had demonstrated the farce of the Sikorsky solution and the tragedy for the many employees who will lose their jobs. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State could tell us precisely how many jobs will go and from where. He quoted extensively from the company's statement. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) yesterday suggested that 1,500 would go there. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who must be wondering about the way that he urged his constituents to vote last year, suggested that 1,000 jobs would go at Yeovil. Can the Secretary of State give a more precise estimate of the number of real jobs that will go?
The sub-contractors to Westland have been concerned over the past few years about their future. What estimate has been made of the number of sub-contracting jobs that will go? The right hon. Gentleman said that some extra money will come from outside the defence budget. Can he tell us what extra money, how much and for how long? He also said that the rest of the money would come from expenditure within the budget. Can he say how much, for how many years, and where the cuts will be made to meet that additional expenditure?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the order for Lynx goes nowhere towards meeting the Army's needs for battlefield helicopters on the central front? It will not solve the problem of our conventional helicopter needs in that area. Our NATO allies have suggested that we need at least an additional 100 helicopters. The decision announced today may assert the viability of Westland in the near future, but it does nothing to meet the need for a European pillar of collaboration or the real defence needs of the British Army on the central front. For many constituents of Conservative and Liberal Members in the west country it will bring nothing but heartbreak.
Mr. Younger: I rather feel that that was the question that the hon. Gentleman had hoped to be able to ask

481
before he heard the statement, because it does not bear any relation to the scale of the announcement that I made today. First, it is quite wrong to produce comments or suggestions as if Sikorsky has somehow let everybody down in this matter. In fact, it has fulfilled all that it undertook to do in taking its interest in Westland. There is no sense, profit or truth in trying to suggest that in any way it has let down Westland or us. That is not the case.
On the estimate of job losses, as the hon. Gentleman will perhaps appreciate, it is not I who run Westland. It is up to Westland to work out the consequences to it of the orders that I have announced today. It is perfectly clear that those consequences will be much better after today's announcement than they would have been if the announcement had not been made. That applies also to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised about subcontractors—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman would find it easier to get answers to his questions if he listened to them.
The sub-contractors will benefit from the fact that this large number of new orders is being given to the company. When one adds together all the orders that I have announced today, those that the company already has in hand, the naval version of the EH101, which has been on the cards for some time, and the possibility of export orders, it is clear that we are discussing a company which, over the next decade or so, has orders worth well over £1 billion. It cannot be said that that is disastrous news either for the company or for the subcontractors who work for it.
As far as expenditure being within budget is concerned, any expenditure on defence is expenditure that cannot be made twice. Therefore, if one buys anything with the defence budget, one cannot buy something else. However, it is different in this case in that I have got some extra money—this will be published in due course—for the 16 Lynxes that we have added to the order today.
Finally, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Lynx is no use for the Army's need for battlefield helicopters. That is correct because it is not intended for that purpose. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is a joint project with the Italians, whereby the A129 Agusta battlefield helicopter is under a project definition stage with the Italian partners. The Army's need for battlefield helicopters may eventually be met there, and not in this announcement today. It is quite irrelevant to bring it in today.

British Gas (Multiple Share Applications)
5.2 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the thousands of illegal multiple applications for shares in last year's British Gas privatisation".
It has been brought to public attention today by the accountants, Touche Ross, brought in to police the flotation of British Gas, that they have discovered what appear to be some substantial attempts at fraud in the British Gas share offer.
That report surely calls into question the Government's entire privatisation programme, both past and planned. That public assets such as British Gas should be put at the mercy of organised share-dealing rings and individuals, whose whole motivation is private greed, is a disgrace.
The public and the House have a right to know whether the Conservative party will write to British Gas shareholders for donations to its fighting fund, and also issue a survey asking those people what should be sold off next from the public sector, as it did to British Telecom shareholders.
Touche Ross must be congratulated on using, for the first time, computers to cross-check names and addresses. It is a shame that that system was not used in the past, as it would, presumably, have saved the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) the bother of writing six times to an hon. Member of this House asking for his party's paydirt for the selling off of the national asset of British Telecom.
Finally, it is thought that the multiple applications alone are larger than the 6,600 in the British Telecom case, and that the sums of money involved are higher. This House should have the opportunity to discuss this specific and important matter before the Government proceed with any further privatisation, especially with the proposed sale of Rolls-Royce, which seems to make this a matter for the most urgent consideration. I beg to seek leave to move the Adjournment.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the thousands of illegal multiple applications for shares in last year's British Gas privatisation".
I listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Birkbeck College (Grant)
5.4 pm
Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The cut of half a million pounds in the grant from the university of London to Birkbeck college in the 1987–88 academic year and the prospects of a further sharp decline in the following two years".
That has happened in spite of the commitment by the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he introduced the White Paper:
"I want to encourage more people of all ages to go on to higher education." —[Official Report, 1 April 1987; Vol. 113, c. 1098.]
He made it plain that he regarded the admission of more mature students as a "challenge" to the universities.
Birkbeck is determined to meet those challenges and to continue to provide for its existing students. How then can the Government allow these savage cuts in its grant when, over recent weeks, the Under-Secretary of State has said that Birkbeck should be treated as a special factor in the University Grants Committee's calculation of its block grant to the university of London? A letter from the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made the same commitments. The Government should now ensure that proper funds are made available to the university of London so that it can treat Birkbeck as a special factor.
The matter is specific and urgent. The future of Birkbeck college and its tradition of part-time education, leading to degrees, depends on the decisions made over the next few weeks. The House should debate this matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the serious cut in funding for Birkbeck college in the next, 1987–88, and subsequent, financial year".
I regret that I have to give the hon. Lady the same answer that I gave her hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). I do not consider the matter as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and cannot, therefore, submit her application to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the Colleges of Education (Scotland) Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 309), be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.;—[Mr. Malone.]

Orders of the Day
  Debtors (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Debtors (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      REPLACEMENT OF WARRANT SALES BY DEBT ARBITRATION SERVICE
      '(1) Within twelve months of the enactment of this Act, the practice of poinding and warrant sales in connection with domestic debt shall be completely abolished and the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament an order to set up a Debt Arbitration Service to deal with cases of domestic debt, where either the debtor or the creditor wishes to refer the matter to the Debt Arbitration Service.
      (2)For the purposes of this Act, domestic debt means a debt incurred and owed by an individual, as distinct from a company or body corporate.
      (3)The order under subsection (1) of this section shall he subject to affirmative approval of the House of Commons'. —[Mr. Canavan.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.7 pm
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 2, in clause 16, page 14, leave out lines 25 to line 7 on page 15 and insert—
      '(2) All household goods belonging to a debtor shall he exempt from poinding.'.
      Mr. Canavan: When the Bill was first mentioned in the Queen's Speech last November, I gave it a qualified welcome because, with other hon. Members, I thought that it was long overdue that something should be done to change the law on warrant sales. However, the reason why I gave the Bill only a qualified welcome was that I feared that when it was published it would bring about only minor changes in the existing law, as has happened with these rather pussyfooting proposals, rather than seek the more radical solution of the outright abolition of warrant sales.
      When people outside Scotland hear that we still have the practice of poinding and warrant sales, they wonder what sort of civilised society we live in when a sheriff officer can go along and batter on someone's door —in certain circumstances, batter down the door without that person even knowing—and proceed to earmark personal property and goods, to be the subject of a sale. At one time there was certainly much agreement on both sides of the House that something should be done to end this barbaric practice. Indeed, the Scottish Law Commission set up an investigation into the whole system well over a decade ago, but clearly it has been dragging its heels. I understand that its modest proposals are behind the Bill.
      My new clause goes further than the Scottish Law Commission's recommendations and considerably further than the proposals in the Bill. The new clause seeks to abolish completely the practice of poinding and warrant sales in Scotland and to replace it with the much fairer system of debt arbitration. That would be in the interests of both debtor and consumer. Rather than try to rush the matter through, I am prepared to give the Secretary of State, the Solicitor-General for Scotland and their

      485
      ministerial colleagues a 12-month period in which to introduce the appropriate prohibition and parliamentary order to set up the new system of debt arbitration.
      I am sure that during the various stages of the Bill it has been suggested that warrant sales are no longer the problem that they once were. It is true that their frequency has decreased in recent years. That may well be partly because of parliamentary pressure from hon. Members, such as me and my late hon. Friend Jimmy Dempsey, who had the privilege to represent the constituency of Coatbridge and Airdrie, now Monklands, West. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and his predecessor for their excellent work, and to the trade unions, such as SOGAT, which took direct action in refusing to advertise warrant sales. Partly because of such pressure, the incidence of warrant sales has decreased in recent years. Indeed, I do not know of a single warrant sale which has taken place in my constituency since I started to apply parliamentary pressure by introducing private Member's Bills.
      Although we welcome the decreasing incidence of warrant sales, it is worth pointing out to the Solicitor-General for Scotland that poinding, advertising and the build-up to a warrant sale are a distressing experience, even if the sale is eventually called off. It is a form of legalised intimidation, public humiliation and punishment, rather than a constructive attempt to get a debt repaid.
      Most of the debts are personal or domestic as distinct from debts incurred or owed by companies and bodies corporate. That is why my new clause refers only to personal or domestic debts. Most of them amount to less than £100 and are not contested. In the majority of cases the debtor admits that he or she has incurred the debt and is usually willing to make some effort to repay it. But all too often he or she cannot repay the debt, possibly because of a change of circumstance—for example, unemployment, sickness or a change in family circumstances. Certainly the Government must bear some of the responsibility in this respect, as high unemployment has been exacerbated by their economic policies.
      5.15 pm
      In the majority of cases there is no need to go trailing along to a sheriff court or any other court to prove the debt because the debt is admitted and the debtor is willing to repay it. Surely it makes sense to set up a debt arbitration service where both creditor and debtor can get together through an independent arbitrator and reach some sort of out-of-court settlement. If such a voluntary settlement fails, the debt arbitration officer could be given the power to enforce the repayment by instalments or, in the last resort, by the arrestment of wages.
      In the past we have seen similar debts settled with some success by various arbitrators set up by Governments. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, for example, has had some success in settling industrial relations cases, and the rent officer system has in many cases led to the determination of a fair rent rather than an excessive one. Therefore, it seems that the introduction of the system of debt arbitration would be a reasonable and constructive way of dealing with the problem. Certainly it would be more constructive than the existing system of warrant sales or threatened warrant sales.
      486
      I have not yet seen the speech of the Solicitor-General for Scotland— and certainly I have not helped him to write it — but he will almost certainly refer to the possible expense of a debt arbitration scheme, but the warrant sales system is considerably expensive. Indeed, the expenses incurred through poinding, advertising and even the sale itself sometimes far outweigh the original debt. Constituents have come to me about expenses which have been 10 or 20 times the amount of the original debt. Therefore, the existing system does not make financial sense.
      Moreover, the public purse could save itself court expenses. Obviously, people would go to the debt arbitration officer rather than to court, which would reduce some of the work load and expenses of the court system. If there is any serious threat of an increase in expenditure because of the new system, a levy could be made on credit companies, particularly big credit companies, which do not always act responsibly. Indeed, some act irresponsibly by encouraging people on low incomes to take on debts far beyond their means. Then, when circumstances change, whether through sickness, death in the family or unemployment, those people often find it absolutely impossible to repay the debt under the terms demanded by the credit companies. There may well be a case there for a levy on the credit companies to meet the expense of any new system.
      As a long-time campaigner for this measure, I have made several previous attempts to introduce a private Member's Bill. I have checked Hansard for 3 June 1981 and looked at the sponsors I managed to get for my private Member's Bill, because I realise that on such a measure there could sometimes be an advantage in getting support from both sides of the House. Four Scottish Tory Members sponsored me, including Mr. David Myles—who is no longer with us here—his good and dear friend and neighbour the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) and their good friend the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) as well as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), who is now a Minister in the Scottish Office. Unfortunately, whether by accident or design, he is not here. If he were, obviously I should be urging him to support me with his voice and vote.
      I appeal to the Solicitor-General, on the ground that there is a consensus within Scotland, irrespective of party political divisions in the House or in Scotland in general, to end this system. The vast majority of the people of Scotland want to end it. They do not want a tinkering with the system through these pussyfooting reforms proposed by the Government; they want complete abolition of the system. The system of warrant sales is seen as a barbaric, inhuman, medieval practice which has caused undue hardship to countless thousands of people and their families. It is high time that the House of Commons abolished it for ever.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I rise to support the new clause and the amendment. We are presumably talking about a small number of cases when we discuss warrant sales, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) suggests, an arbitration service could play a useful role. The Solicitor-General knows that I am unhappy with the notion that a debtor's effects can be auctioned off in a local sales room. We disagree about the usefulness of such a measure, On

      487
      Second Reading I said that holding the sale in an auction room was an improvement on a warrant sale being held in a debtor's house, but that it was an unsatisfactory arrangement because the stigma is still there and little money would be raised from such a sale given the rings that we know are organised by furniture dealers and others when such sales take place.
      My hon. Friend's new clause is an even better proposal than that of removing the warrant sale from the debtor's house and taking it to the auction room. I believe that the concept of a debt arbitration service is good and constructive and is certainly worthy of consideration by this Government and their successors.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: In addressing myself in the main to amendment No. 2, I must say that I welcome the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) to my predecessor, the late Jimmy Dempsey. Jimmy Dempsey shared our repugnance for warrant sales in any form and my hon. Friend, whose comments were most generous and should be much appreciated, will know that on Second Reading, as well as in Committee, the Opposition placed on record very firmly the view that warrant sales in every shape or form ought to be abolished.
      In saying that all household goods belonging to a debtor should be exempt from poinding, we are trying to give effect to the thinking expressed in the Scottish Law Commission's report, which obviously influenced the Government in drafting the Bill that they have put before the House. In Committee, I was left with the impression that certainly the Opposition wanted to see householders protected from humiliation and from the idea that sheriff officers can involve themselves in poinding various goods which are outlined in clause 16. Some are exempted: beds or bedding, household linen, and so on. The Solicitor General will recall that in Committee we had some doubts as to whether a washing machine might be the subject of exemption. To put the matter beyond any doubt, we thought it right to table this new clause making it clear that all household goods belonging to a debtor shall be exempt from poinding.
      We believe that the Bill would be improved thereby and that assistance would be given to the debtor as well as to the creditor. The great mass of evidence that we have seen suggests that people find themselves in debt not because there is a willingness on their part to be in that position, but for other reasons. We believe that help is needed and that the legislation that we seek to introduce should be of assistance to the debtor and to the creditor in trying to find a solution to the problem by ensuring that the debt is paid, in time, without humiliating the householder or his family.
      We believe that if the new clause were accepted, it would put this matter beyond question and, above all, remove any suggestion of humiliation in the way that has rightly been held in contempt by my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and Falkirk, West.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): I suspect that I am suffering this afternoon for having pointed out on Second Reading that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) was not present. Nevertheless, in spite of the crack that I made then, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting forward this new clause on debt arbitration rather than the arrangements which we discussed in Committee.
      488
      As the hon. Gentleman may recall, The Labour party put forward certain proposals to the Scottish Law Commission during the course of its deliberations suggesting that there should be a debt arbitration service of some sort, and the Commissoner recorded the following in paragraph 2.85 of its report;
      "It would appear that poindings and warrant sales"—
      in relation to such a debt arbitration service—
      "would not be permitted, though this is not entirely clear."
      The hon Gentleman suggests the introduction of a debt arbitration service and the abolition in its entirety of the diligence of poinding and warrant sale. His colleagues have certainly been criticised during the passage of the Bill for failing to put forward any alternative of this character, and to that extent at least it is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should have done so. But it seems to me that there are a number of quite significant flaws in the way in which he has proposed it.
      First, let me say that I am aware of the Bill that the hon. Gentleman introduced in 1981. There was some obscurity in that Bill about what would be required in terms of enforcement. The hon. Gentleman has changed his proposal from personal debt in his Bill in 1981 to domestic debt in this new clause. I think that I understand what is intended, but either definition would take us further into commercial matters than I suspect the hon. Gentleman intended. For instance, partners may in some circumstances be personally liable for the debts of the partnership. Those debts might thus be regarded as domestic within the meaning of the new clause.
      5.30 pm
      I rehearsed the arguments for and against the retention of poinding and sale at some length during the earlier stages of the Bill. I went into the arguments for reform rather than abolition in some detail on Second Reading. I do not propose to rehearse those arguments again. Suffice to say that the Scottish Law Commission advanced many cogent arguments against abolition in chapter 2 of its report, and the retention of a reformed procedure was the starting point of the recommendations in that report, and indeed that is the foundation on which the Bill is built.
      I want to consider the somewhat unspecific debt arbitration service proposed by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West. I suppose that its purpose will be to arrange for payment by instalments and to interrupt enforcement of debts by the diligences still available to creditors. The hon. Gentleman may want the Secretary of State to set up an arbitration service similar to that proposed by the Scottish Consumer Council. Indeed, that might be a more workable system than that suggested by the hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Gentleman has developed his argument, I understand that he wants to get rid of all poinding and warrant sales. He does not simply want that system as an opt-out arrangement as the Scottish Consumer Council suggested.
      I understand how a debt arbitration system would work in cases where people had a multiplicity of debts and no significant assets out of which to make payment, but the hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself to the debtor —perhaps the hon. Member for Falkirk, West himself—who is simply unco-operative, but who has sufficient means to pay his debts. Such a person may simply be unco-operative over the payments due. Such a debtor may not be in any real significant financial difficulty; he may simply decline to pay. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West

      489
      has not made it clear what will happen under a debt arbitration system if a debtor simply declines to participate in that arrangement for debt arbitration. Is that person entitled simply to shrug his shoulders and go off?
      I suppose that it is possible, given the very much improved arrangements for arrestment in a later part of the Bill, that the system could be operated. However, what will happen when someone has a valuable moveable asset —for example, a Van Gogh hanging on the wall of his house? In such a circumstance, if the hon. Gentleman's scheme were followed, there would be no way in which the owner of the Van Gogh's perfectly lawful creditors would be able to get satisfaction for the debts owed to them.
      Mr. Canavan: The new clause makes it perfectly clear that either the debtor or the creditor can refer the matter to the debt arbitration service in a case such as that outlined by the Solicitor-General, in which a fairly rich debtor is simply being unco-operative in paying the debt. There is nothing to stop the creditor going to the debt arbitration service.
      During my speech, I said that the debt arbitration officer could, and in my view should, be given the power to enforce the repayment of the debt in cases where there is clearly an ability to repay the debt, but the debtor is unwilling to pay. I do not know of anyone who has a Van Gogh or a Rembrandt who does not have a few bob in the bank as well. It would be more practical, to achieve a constructive repayment of the debt, to arrest that person's wages or unearned income or whatever than to grab the Rembrandt or Van Gogh and to sell it at a warrant sale. Frankly, the Solicitor-General's example was ridiculous.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman is trying to slip around the point. He will not face the fact that the example that he has just given would require the individual — whom he describes as the debt arbitration officer — to have power to enforce the system. The hon. Gentleman must face this point. It is a matter of intellectual argument. What powers of enforcement would he grant to that individual? If a debtor simply says that he accepts that he owes the debt but will not pay it, what will happen then? An arrestment may be made, but that is elaborate and clumsy. If someone owes a large sum of money——
      Mr. Canavan: What did the Government do to the National Union of Mineworkers? They seized its bloody funds.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I do not think that I will go down that particular path; nor will I adopt the hon. Gentleman's unparliamentary language.
      Mr. Barry Henderson: Is the situation that my hon. and learned Friend has described, in which an arbitrator has no power, similar to that of a Chairman of a Committee of this House who has no power in Committee to eject an hon. Member who is not a member of that Committee, but who is disrupting the proceedings of that Committee and of the House?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I grasp my hon. Friend's allusion, but Opposition Members may rest assured that I shall not follow my hon. Friend down that route.
      490
      There is a substantial difficulty. As I said to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West a moment ago, bodies such as the Scottish Consumer Council have carefully considered the possibility of a debt arbitration service. However, those bodies did not slip away from facing up to the difficulty that, if such a system existed, it could be introduced only as an option or alternative. It would not be possible to introduce a coherent and workable scheme if, as an ultimate remedy, no form of enforcement was retained through the reformed procedures of poinding and warrant sales.
      The hon. Member for Falkirk, West said that if we talk to anyone outside Scotland, that person will not have heard of poinding or warrant sales. That is correct. I do not know of any other system with practices called poinding or warrant sales. However, there is no mature legal system—as far as I am aware—that does not have at least a comparable system.
      The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) spoke briefly about amendment No. 2:
      "All household goods belonging to a debtor shall be exempt from poinding."
      We had considerable discussion about that in Committee. I immediately have difficulty about the provision that the hon. Gentleman suggests. What are household goods?
      Mr. Archy Kirkwood indicated dissent.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is shaking his head in a knowledgeable way. However, according to amendment No. 2, anything that is contained in a house, whatever its value, whatever its use, or whatever reasonable use is required of it—
      Mr. Kirkwood: What about the Van Gogh?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman wants to pursue my example. If there is a valuable painting on a wall, is that "household goods"?
      Mr. Kirkwood: Of course it is.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is highly arguable whether it is. If the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire says that it is not part of household goods, he is effectively saying that we should consider the list in clause 16 of the Bill and decide that household goods do not include paintings on walls, satin pillows or such things. Rather, they are goods that are reasonably required for people to carry on their lives. The Government and the Scottish Law Commission believe that——
      Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No, I want to finish my point.
      We have said that the proper way to approach the matter is to have an extensive list— one that is much more extensive than the previous list. For example, according to amendment No. 2, if a warehouse were full of refrigerators and there was a commercial debt, there can be no doubt that refrigerators are household goods. In such circumstances, all those items would be exempted from poinding and ultimately from warrant sales.
      The hon. Member for Monklands, West has made several efforts to extend the list in clause 16 and to modify some of its provisions. I have given some examples showing how difficult it would be to rely on such a broad

      491
      test. If we did so, we would be considering what are truly commercial debts. Far from there being less difficulty, there is a grave possibility that we would have to leave it to the courts in circumstance after circumstance to decide whether paintings or other items were truly household goods. Far from Parliament or the Scottish Law Commission deciding what should be included in the list, effectively we would be asking the courts to determine for us what should be included in the definition of household goods.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: In Committee, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not have much difficulty in explaining to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), who had some doubts about whether a washing machine was exempt, that it was. Why is the hon. and learned Gentleman so confident about that? Where does a dish-washing machine figure in the Government's thinking? In the absence of a clear explanation, does the hon. and learned Gentleman not feel that "household goods" is a much clearer definition than what appears in clause 16?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: We are going to move quite a long way from the amendment. Clause 16(2) contains an extensive list of what is required. I thought that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) understood from my answer that we did not include the term "washing machine" but relied on a broader definition. We wanted to ensure that we were talking not simply about a washing machine, rather than a spin drier—or, to develop the technology of the times, the two incorporated in a single appliance, with the problem of deciding whether it was or was not a washing machine. Accordingly, we decided that it was safer to use the broader definition in clause 16(2).
      I have said why I do not accept the view of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West of a debt arbitration service. I am surprised at the approach of the hon. Member for Monklands, West, who fought valiantly in Committee to refine clause 16(2). He now shrugs his shoulders and says that all household goods are to be exempted. That would mean that the courts would have to decide what should or should not be included.
      Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I have a great deal of sympathy with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) because of the simplicity it offers. I notice that under clause 16(3) the Lord Advocate may add to or delete from the list from time to time. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that it is a long time since we have heard about an exercise in diligence of this kind. Work has been going on for 17 or 18 years on the present exercise. Would the Lord Advocate be prepared to add to or delete from the list annually? Things change rapidly. I, for one, should be greatly reassured if the Lord Advocate were to do this annually.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking that the Lord Advocate will do so annually. But the right hon. Gentleman clearly appreciates the provisions of clause 16(3), which states:
      "The Lord Advocate may by regulations add to the list… delete or vary any of the items".
      I cannot immediately envisage any item that needs to be added to or deleted from the list. However, if at any time
      492
      it is thought that the list should be added to or varied, that can be done without any 10-year consideration of the item. It can be done immediately. I do not envisage that, if the Lord Advocate decided that an item should be added to the list, and accordingly excluded from what might be subject to poinding and warrant sales, it would excite much controversy in the House.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Canavan: I do not see any difficulty about the interpretation of "household goods". The Solicitor-General for Scotland is talking absolute rubbish. Under the prohibited items, page 15 of the Bill lists
      "tools used for maintenance or repair of the dwellinghouse or of household articles."
      "Household articles" is clear by definition and is not subject to interpretation by a sheriff. What, therefore, is wrong with the term "household goods", used by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I know that the hon. Gentleman had a lot to think about as I was speaking, following my attack on his proposed debt arbitration service.
      Mr. Canavan: What is the answer?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If I am provoking the hon. Gentleman, I withdraw. I want to get on with the debate. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have grasped one problem.
      If amendment No. 2 were to be accepted, not only would household goods in the debtor's home be excluded from poinding but, if the debtor happened to be a commercial man who had a warehouse full of refrigerators, hi-fis, and so on, those items would not be subject to poinding and warrant sale. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West is prepared to withdraw the motion and new clause. If the hon. Members for Falkirk, West and for Monklands, West continue to have any misgivings about what is excluded in clause 16(2) from poinding and warrant sales, an opportunity remains immediately the Bill becomes law to make representations to the Lord Advocate to add to or vary by regulation what is included in the list.
      Question put and negatived.

    Clause 5

      TIME TO PAY ORDERS
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 1, leave out from first 'arrestment' to 'has' in line 2.
      This is a technical amendment designed to improve the clarity of the clause.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 32

      LOCATION OF SALE
      Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 25, line 25, leave out from 'except' to end of line 27 and insert
      'in the case where an auction room or suitable alternative premises is not available in the vicinity.'.
      The amendment is dear to the hearts of a number of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for

      493
      Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who expressed some of his opinions earlier today. We are confused about the Government's thinking on where the sale of a person's goods should take place. We do not support the view that it should take place in the house. We resisted the Government's thinking so far as we could on Second Reading and in Committee but could not persuade the Government to share our views.
      On Second Reading, the Solicitor-General for Scotland distinguished between circumstances in, for example, the constituency of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and circumstances in my constituency. Ever since, even after the hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation, I have been thinking about exactly what he meant. In an endeavour to co-operate with his thinking, I suggest that this amendment might be acceptable. It would mean that a sale would not take place in a person's house, even if he had been persuaded against his wishes to hold it there. Even if he exercised all the rights that the Bill would give him to consult with other occupiers, and so on, it would not remove the stigma which long remains after a sale takes place in a person's house. Therefore, in the light of the Government's logic, in so far as we could understand it, there was virtually no case for insisting that a sale should take place in a person's house. We are, therefore, offering the option in this amendment, solely in circumstances where an auction room or other suitable alternative premises is available in the vicinity, for such a sale to take place.
      What we have tried to do is to simplify the whole exercise and to introduce as much dignity as we can into these proceedings. We feel that if there is an option available, although the Solicitor-General will say that it might cost money, when set against the humiliation that would be guaranteed if a house is used, the cost of an auction room is the lesser of the two evils. In that spirit I hope that the Solicitor-General will accept the amendment.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: This amendment removes the requirement for the written consent of the debtor or occupier to the sale in a dwelling-house and allows such sales to take place where an auction room or suitable alternative premises is not available in the vicinity. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think something has gone slightly wrong with his amendment because it removes the critical or crucial requirement for the debtor's or occupier's written consent to a sale in a dwelling-house. I do not think the hon. Gentleman intended the amendment to come out in that way.
      If the amendment were to be effected, there would be the opportunity for a sale in a dwelling-house if there were no alternative auction rooms available, but it would remove the requirement for consent. As I said both at Second Reading and in Committee, the circumstances in which a warrant sale might take place in a house are very limited. We believe that if such a sale is to take place, it must be not only with the consent of the debtor but also that of the occupier, who might be a different person in many circumstances.
      I am not trying to twist the hon. Gentleman's tail purely for the sheer pleasure of it, but the effect of what he has put down would achieve an objective that is wholly
      494
      contrary to what he is trying to do. In certain circumstances it might be far more damaging to a debtor than what the Government are proposing.
      Mr. Clarke: I am always anxious to reciprocate the generosity that we receive from the Government side of the House, but the Solicitor-General has misunderstood the amendment. The effect of this amendment would underscore our opinion that these sales should not be taking place in homes or houses in any case. If we argue and pursue the principle that it is wrong for sales to take place in a given house, there is no need to qualify that argument by saying that one ought to consult the occupier. The basic thrust of the amendment is that there should not be sales in houses at all unless it can be shown that alternative and suitable premises are not available, so that the sale can take place.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I think the hon. Gentleman is not quite understanding this. Under what we have proposed, where no auction room is immediately available, for example in the north of Scotland, if the debtor or occupier said, "No, you cannot have a warrant sale and I refuse to consent to a warrant sale in the house," steps would have to be taken to get the goods to an auction room, however far away it was.
      Curiously, under the hon. Gentleman's proposal, it would be possible in a rural area, where there is no auction room available, to press ahead with a warrant sale without any consideration of whether the debtor or occupier consents. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head but I trust that the penny is beginning to drop with him and that that is a consequence that he cannot have intended to bring about by his amendment.
      We understand that the practical ordinary circumstance will be that a warrant sale will take place in an auction room. We accept that that is the most humane and sensible way to approach it, to secure the anonymity of the debtor and avoid personal humiliation and embarrassment. It is only where the debtor or occupier consents—and there may be good reason for that, if he is leaving the neighbourhood and wants to get as much as possible for the goods without the cost of taking them to an auction room — that he might be prepared, but could not be forced, to have a warrant sale in his home.
      Dr. Godman: There is an improvement with the shift to an auction room because it does guarantee anonymity. Is the Solicitor-General satisfied that this Bill protects the interests of a debtor when such a sale takes place in an auction room?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes, and that is a point that I ought to have picked up from the hon. Gentleman's earlier intervention. He possibly has not appreciated that once a debtor's goods go to an auction room, the debtor will be wholly anonymous. Nothing will be tagged on to the goods to indicate that they were taken under warrant sale from such a debtor at such an address. That humiliation will not occur. I am satisfied that once the goods go to the warrant sale, the debtor will not be identified in any way, nor will his goods be identified to the public at large as having belonged to him. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared, now that I have given that explanation, to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 47

      GENERAL EFFECT OF EARNINGS ARRESTMENT
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 37, line 16, after 'recalled', insert
      'or abandoned by the creditor.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will take amendment No. 13.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: These are technical amendments designed to remove any doubts that an earnings arrestment or a current maintenance arrestment ceases to have effect on its abandonment by the creditor.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 49

      DEDUCTIONS FROM NET EARNINGS TO BE MADE BY EMPLOYER
      Mr. Bruce Millan: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 37, line 38, after '(1)' insert 'Subject to subsection 6(a) below'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will take the following amendments: No. 7, in page 38, line 15, after `(2)', insert
      'Subject to subsection 6(a) below'.
      No. 8, in page 38, line 27, after '(3)' insert
      'Subject to subsection 6(a) below'.
      No. 9, in page 38, line 43, after '(4)' insert
      'Subject to subsection 6(a) below'.
      No. 10, in page 39, line 1, after '(5)' insert
      'Subject to subsection 6(a) below'.
      No. 11, in page 39, line 7, after '(6)' insert
      'Subject to subsection 6(a) below'.
      No. 12, in page 39, line 26, at end insert—
      '(6) (a) The Court may, on the application of the debtor, reduce the amounts payable under subsections (1) to (6) above.'.
      Mr. Millan: These amendments deal with the sliding scale of payments that can be deducted from a debtor's earnings under schedule 2 to the Bill. When I first read the Bill, I was worried about the mechanical nature of the arrangements that are being made. I do not object to that in principle, but I was worried that there is no exception to the arrangements that are laid down in the Bill. I now regret that I did not raise my concern on Second Reading and in Committee. I thought then that I was slightly too worried about the arrangements in the schedule.
      Following the Committee Stage, the hon. Members who sat on the Committee received a letter from the Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux expressing similar concerns about the fact that there is no provision in the Bill for an exception to the sliding scale arrangements. That is the reason why I put down the amendments.
      6 pm
      Of course, we all recognise that the arrangements under the Bill generally are a considerable improvement. No one disputes that. If amounts are to be set down in the legislation, they have to be on a sliding scale because they have to take account of the debtor's income. Nevertheless, the figures in schedule 2 that can be deducted weekly are considerable; similar substantial amounts are calculated
      496
      on a monthly basis. For someone with weekly earnings exceeding £280 but not exceeding £300, the deduction is £83. That is a very large sum to deduct from anyone's income. Anyone who has a big weekly wage is also likely to have large weekly commitments such as a mortgage payment or rent which it may not be easy to set aside. The figures in the schedule are substantial and take no account of the personal circumstances of the debtor.
      The purpose of my amendments is to allow a debtor to make application to the court to have the payments reduced. I would not expect such a provision to he used frequently. If it were, I would not expect the court always to give a favourable response to an application; otherwise, there would be little point in writing a sliding scale into the legislation. Nevertheless, flexibility would be preferable to the provision in the Bill.
      It is for that reason that I tabled the amendments. As I said, this part of the Bill has worried me from the beginning. I regret that I did not raise it in Committee but it is better to do it now than not at all. The provisions are causing concern elsewhere among people who are familiar with the working of such arrangements. Therefore, it is well that their concerns should be ventilated.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I see force in what the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) has said but I shall not recommend acceptance of the amendment. After a brief explanation, I hope that he will appreciate that the result he seeks can be achieved by a different route. I should point out to him that the Scottish Law Commission considered whether the courts should have the power to vary deductions in paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8 of its report. It concluded that the courts should not have this power, for reasons of practicality. Many earnings arrestments would subsist for only a few months, so that applications for variations of deductions would have to be disposed of quickly; evaluation of the debtor's means and liabilities, however, which is the basis of any application, could take a considerable time.
      Moreover, if debtors became aware of the court's powers, there was anxiety that there might be a flood of applications. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman was aware that that would be an undesirable development. Accordingly, the advantage of simplicity and ease of operation of earnings arrestment would be lost.
      From the discussion in Committee, I think we all appreciated that for arrestment of earnings to work satisfactorily it was desirable that the minimum burden should be imposed on the employer, not least because of the difficulties it can cause between employee and employer if the arrangement is too elaborate or clumsy.
      What I hope the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, if he has not done so already. is that if an arrangement is made for earnings arrestment and the debtor finds himself in difficulty in making a payment according to the schedule set out in the Bill, there is an opportunity elsewhere in the Bill for him to apply to the court for a time-to-pay order, proposing a lower rate of payment and a recall of the earnings arrestment. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that that will meet his objective. If a debtor found that he could not make a payment, he could make application in this way. If he had a good case, the earnings arrestment would be suspended and a lower rate of payment by instalment rather than by earnings arrestment could be achieved.

      497
      If we are to move away from the statutory schedule of what should be deducted, the advantage of using the time-to-pay order is that the employer would not be asked to apply a different figure and would not have to instruct his or her bookkeeper to make a further deduction. That is a simple and effective way to deal with the matter. I hope I have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman that we take his point, but that it is appropriately dealt with in the Bill.
      Mr. Millan: I am grateful for the explanation. I had not realised on reading the Bill that once the process was in operation it would still be open to the debtor to apply to the court for a different arrangement. Whether in practice there would be time for that to be done successfully before the whole debt had been recovered must be doubtful in most cases, but I am satisfied with the explanation given, that there is a mechanism available which I had not understood before. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 73

      INTERPRETATION OF PART III
      Mr. Millan: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 57, line 23, at end insert 'or'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 15, in page 57, line 29. leave out from 'employment' to end of line 30.
      No. 16, in page 58, line 4, at end insert—
      '(h) statutory sick pay.'.
      Mr. Millan: The purpose of these amendments is to take statutory sick pay out of the list of items which are included in earnings for arrestment purposes and put it into the list of items which are not to be treated as earnings in the arrestment arrangements. Again I am obliged to the Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux for pointing this out, because I missed it on reading the Bill initially.
      I find it odd that statutory sick pay, which is like a social security benefit, should be included in the determination of earnings for arrestment purposes. Under the clause, other pensions, allowances or benefits payable under social security legislation are excluded. In those circumstances I do not understand why statutory sick pay should be included. In fairness, statutory sick pay should be excluded. I hope the Solicitor-General will agree to statutory sick pay being transferred to the category of items which are not to be included as earnings for arrestment purposes.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Hon. Members will be aware that the Bill makes a deliberate and careful distinction between payments—pensions, allowances and benefits — made under social security legislation and statutory sick pay. Payments under social security legislation are expressly provided to be not equivalent to earnings. Such payments are therefore quite rightly not taken into account in the Bill's provisions about which deductions are to be made under an earnings arrestment from weekly or monthly earnings.
      On the other hand, statutory sick pay is payable in replacement of earnings when an employee is sick. It is
      498
      therefore entirely reasonable and logical that what an employee receives from his employer, whether as earned wages or statutory sick pay, should be treated as earnings for the purposes of the Bill's provisions. That was the intention of the Scottish Law Commission, which it expressed in paragraph 6.36 of its report. The provisions simply bring Scotland into line with England and Wales.
      In 1985 the relevant English legislation about attachment of earnings was amended by the Social Security Act 1985. This House and the other House have accepted the principle that statutory sick pay is to be equated with earnings. For that reason it is difficult to see why the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) foresees any distinction being brought about between Scotland and the rest of the country.
      The system that we have is designed to safeguard the interests of the debtor and creditor by ensuring that regular payments are made to the creditor to reduce the debt. The regular instalments are of an amount which the debtor can be reasonably expected to contribute. This scheme would be disrupted if, in a week in which the employee was sick, no deductions from his earnings were to be made. It would produce quite unnecessary complications for the employer — who must operate the arrestments — and the employee. The disruption in the smooth running of earnings arrestment is not necessary or justifiable on the ground of principle. The right hon. Member for Govan probably is aware that the Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has made that point.
      What should be made clear is that if deductions are to be made from statutory sick pay they should be on the basis of the net earnings as set out in the schedule to the Bill. The amount of deduction would not continue at the rate appropriate to the wages received prior the period of sickness.
      As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is not just statutory sick pay arrangements that are made; certain additional sick pay arrangements are also made. If what the right hon. Member suggested were to be incorporated in the Bill it would leave the employer in the extremely complicated position of trying to work out exactly what was to be included in earnings, from which a deduction could be made, and what was to be excluded.
      On that basis I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I rise because I was not quick enough to catch the eye of Solicitor-General for Scotland. Am I right in assuming that the new statutory maternity pay would come under the social security legislation, to which he adverted, and therefore would be exempt? That is a detailed point, so if he cannot answer it now I should like some assurance at a later date.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I cannot be certain on this point. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to pursue it, I shall write to him.
      Mr. Millan: I am not convinced by the argument of the Solicitor-General for Scotland. I did not mention any distinction between Scotland and England; I was not aware that there was a difference. The argument that Scotland must be brought into line with England for consistency reasons is an unattractive one. It persuades me that my amendment is a good one.

      499
      Statutory sick pay is what would otherwise be a national insurance benefit. The Solicitor-General for Scotland shakes his head, but that is what it is. It puts a certain obligation on the employer in circumstances where previously national insurance benefits were paid. It should be included, analagously, with national insurance benefits in the items which are excluded from the definition of earnings for the purposes of this clause. I am not persuaded by the argument of the Solicitor-General for Scotland and I feel disposed to take this to a Division.
      Amendment negatived.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I must apologise to the House because I omitted to deal with amendment No. 13. Will the Solicitor-General for Scotland please move it formally?
      Amendment made: No. 13, in clause 51, page 40, line 28, at end insert 'or abandoned by the creditor.'. — [The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

    Clause 101

      ADJUDICATION FOR DEBT
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, amendment No. 17, in page 73, line 41, after first 'debt', insert
      '(other than an auction under section 23(5) of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1924)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 18.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: This is a highly technical amendment.
      Amendment agreed to
      Amendment made: No. 18, in page 73, line 43, at end insert—
      '(aa) the debt is a debitum fundi; or'.;—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
      6.18 pm
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I should like to thank right hon. and hon. Members for the general welcome that they have given the Bill. The welcome was not as unqualified as we might have wished, but nevertheless it ensured that consideration of the Bill both here and in Committee proceeded in a constructive manner.
      As I mentioned in Committee, the Bill was dealt with expeditiously, but that did not prevent us giving a good airing to the main points at issue. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their contributions and particularly to the Scottish Law Commission. It was a long time in gestation of these proposals, but now that we have concluded consideration of them, I am sure that in Scotland it will be considered that its deliberations and our own have been worthwhile in bringing about a reform of this part of the private law of Scotland which has been long awaited. Much of the humiliation and embarrassment that has been at the centre of attention in recent years as a result of warrant sales will be part of our history and not part of our present practice.
      6.19 pm
      Mr. MacKenzie: It would be churlish and ungracious of me not to acknowledge that the Bill is a substantial improvement on the present system. Although I have a number of serious reservations about it, I welcome the Bill and I hope that it will become an Act in the fulness of time. As the Solicitor-General for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) know, we have been opposed to the present system for many years. It is humiliating to ordinary people and is fair neither to debtor nor creditor. We still have some substantial reservations about it and about debt arrangements. We hope that the Solicitor-General will keep an open mind on that.
      We have serious reservations on the whole question of whether warrant sales should still continue. Over the past few weeks the Solicitor-General has tweaked our tails by asking what we have in mind to put in its place. If he pressed me too hard I would have to say that I would go and ask my noble and learned Friend the Lord Morton of Shuna. That is the best answer I can think of at the moment.
      The only other reservation I have is a purely personal one. The only private Member's Bill that I have got through the House in the past 23 years is now being repealed by this Bill, which I welcome. I will not have my name on the statute book ever again but, that apart, I give a general welcome to the Bill.
      6.21 pm
      Mr. Tom Clarke: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Glagow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) who was extremely helpful throughout our proceedings on the Bill, as was my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow. Govan (Mr. Millan). I would also like to thank my other hon. Friends for the contribution they have made to our constructive response to the Government's Bill.
      We said on Second Reading that we welcome the Bill, and we do. In Committee we attempted to offer some constructive suggestions and we regret that the Solicitor-General for Scotland did not find it possible to accept all our proposals. Nevertheless, it would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Bill is a progressive measure. We would, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, have acted differently on matters such as medical aid. I will not go any further on that because I am worried about his blood pressure. We might even have gone further on the arrangements which the Law Commission suggested about multiple debt. We would have gone much further on many other aspects of the recommendations of the Law Commission. We still feel a repugnance about having any sales at all in a household.
      However, that said, there is no doubt that, given some of the scars of the past and some of the social stigmas which were inflicted upon families and upon communities, the Bill as it now stands does represent progress. For our part we shall represent our views as the Bill is enacted and we shall monitor the legislation. We regard it as an extremely helpful Bill and we have said so at each stage of its consideration. We also feel — this should be put on record — that it represents a framework for future legislation. I look forward to the Labour Government that we can expect in the not too distant future, as readers of The Guardian will have noted this morning. When that day

      501
      comes we shall be well on our way towards the abolition of warrant sales, which Opposition Members see as the ultimate and urgent objective.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

      Pilotage Bill [Lords]
      Considered in Committee.
      [MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

    Clause 1

      MEANING OF "COMPETENT HARBOUR AUTHORITY" AND "HARBOUR"
      6.23 pm
      Sir Julian Ridsdale: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 15, after 'and', insert `subject to subsection (1A) below,'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 19, at end insert—
      '(1A) Where any part of a harbour authority's harbour is contiguous to an area which (apart from this subsection) is not within its harbour or the harbour of any other competent harbour authority but which is within an active former pilotage district, any reference in this Act to the authority's harbour or its approaches shall, subject to any order made under subsection (3) below, include a reference to that area; and where by virtue of this subsection an area is included in the harbour of more than one harbour authority, those authorities shall exercise their pilotage functions in relation to that area jointly.'.
      No. 4, in page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (3) and
      insert—
      '(3) If the Secretary of State considers that it is not necessary in the interests of efficiency and safety of navigation:

      (a) that a competent harbour authority should exercise pilotage functions as respects any area or part of any area which is included in its harbour by virtue of subsection (1A) above, he may by order exclude that area or part from the area of its harbour; or

      (b) for a competent harbour authority to exercise pilotage functions as respects its harbour, he may by order provide that that authority shall cease to be a competent harbour authority for the purposes of this Act;

      and the Secretary of State may in any case where he considers that it is necessary in the interests of efficiency and safety of navigation that a competent harbour authority should exercise pilotage functions as respects any harbour authority's harbour he may by order provide that this Act shall apply to that competent harbour authority as if its harbour included that other harbour.'.
      No. 45, in clause 12, page 11, line 5, after '(a)' insert
      'apart from section 1(1 A) above,'.
      Sir Julian Ridsdale: Clause 1 ensures that responsibility for considering pilotage requirements is placed on the appropriate harbour authorities. The clause empowers the Secretary of State, where there are likely to be overlapping or conflicting jurisdictions between different harbour authorities, to provide by order that designated harbour authorities should exercise functions that would otherwise be enjoyed by another harbour authority.
      As the Bill stands, the present pilotage limits will be drawn solely by reference to the relevant harbour limits. That will mean a fragmented pilotage service in the Thames estuary. This is especially relevant to the maintenance of maritime safety as it will leave areas of hazardous waters outside the proposed limits for compulsory pilotage.
      As we all know, the Thames estuary is an area of comparatively shallow water, heavily used by all sorts of

      503
      traffic such as chemical carriers, container ships, supertankers and passenger ferries at the mouth of the Thames just 10 miles off shore. That ought not to be left to commercial considerations alone. In order to reach the oil wharves on the tide, deep-draughted tankers drawing up to 45 ft and carrying 100,000 tonnes of oil must negotiate the area south of the Trinity buoy at low water with only 4 ft under-keel clearance. The bottom there is notoriously unstable and subject to sand waves. The navigable channel is only about half a mile wide at best and requires a constant update of knowledge. There is no discernible radar picture and it is just 12 miles off the Essex coast, being some 15 miles seaward of the Port of London authority limit.
      Do the Government really consider that the pilotage can be safely withdrawn from that area, which is very busy and close to the population centres around Margate and the north Kent coast as well as Essex? It is also a well-used fishing ground.
      Immediately north of the Sunk and 10 miles beyond the Harwich harbour board limit is the approach channel to the Haven ports of Ipswich, Harwich and Felixstowe. Ships of up to 13 m draught have to navigate there, dependent on the rise of the tide, with just 1 m under-keel clearance in a channel half a mile wide in a cross tide to the busiest port in the United Kingdom. All in all, that, arguably the busiest stretch of water off our shores, is a somewhat hazardous area in which to navigate. Yet, in the proposed legislation, it falls into no man's land.
      The sea is an unforgiving element, as we have learned just recently to our cost in the tragic ferry disaster. We must not take unnecessary risks. That is why the amendments to clause 1 will maintain the present pilotage limits allowing competent harbour authorities to reduce pilotage limit only upon application to the Secretary of State. That will give effect to the Select Committee's recommendation that initially harbour authorities should take over responsibility for pilotage districts as they presently exist, and harbour authorities which consider that the pilotage districts may he safely reduced should have to seek parliamentary approval.
      Clause 12 deals with joint arrangements. The amendment to the clause is consequential to the new inserted subsection of clause 1(1A). It ensures that any provision for joint arrangements made under clause 12 does not affect the mandatory requirement for joint arrangements under clause 1.
      I hope, in the interests of safety alone, that the Minister will pay attention to the amendments I have moved, and that he will accept them.
      Mr. James Hill: I want to intervene on a point of legality to find out whether the competent harbour authorities are to include the Queen's harbourmasters. It seems that there may be a difference of opinion here because in my part of southern England there are four competent harbour authorities but there is also a Queen's harbourmaster.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I wish to ask the Minister a question about the clause, with which I have a great deal of sympathy. My question concerns the Minches. If the clause were agreed to, would the Stornoway authority be the competent harbour authority? What kind of authority would it exercise over the passage of what I believe are called the ULCCs, which
      504
      go down through those waters from Sullom Voe in Shetland? I accept what the pilots have told me— that it is a safe area through which to navigate huge ships.
      6.30 pm
      However, I am not sure whether ships with draughts of up to 80 ft can safely navigate the passage. Speaking as a layman with no navigational expertise, I recall a large stern trawler from Hull — a ship that is very much smaller than a tanker — going aground in the Minches when fishing for mackerel some years ago. Despite the reassurances that have been offered by the pilots. those tankers should be directed to the west of Lewis and the Western Isles when they are proceeding to and from Sullom Voe. If the clause were accepted, would the Stornoway harbour authority become the competent harbour authority for the Minches?
      Sir Anthony Kershaw: I wish to join my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) in expressing some doubt about the clause. I support his amendments. The question of harbour limits is a crucial one in my part of the world. The Gloucester port is slightly outside my constituency, but Sharpness is in it. The pilots go aboard to bring vessels to those two ports way down the Welsh coast at Barry, which is many miles away.
      As everyone knows, the Severn is a notoriously difficult river. It frequently shifts its channel, has the highest tides in the United Kingdom—almost in the world—and is a tricky business. It is not clear from the arrangements that are outlined in the Bill which harbour authority will be responsible for it. There are three candidates: the Gloucester harbour trustees, the Sharpness board or the British Waterways board. I understand from a letter that I have received from my noble Friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, who introduced the Bill in the other place, that those authorities will have to sort that matter out among themselves.
      There is an element of vagueness about the arrangements which is undesirable in so difficult and dangerous a channel, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can tell us which authority will be responsible and what its duties will be. I hope that he will be able to set at rest our anxieties about pilotage in the area.
      Mr. Tim Brinton: I wish to support the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale), which have a vital part to play in pilotage in the outer reaches of the Thames. My hon. Friend has explained the technicalities, so I shall not dwell on them. The Minister well knows my reservations about the Bill, which seems to represent a piecemeal approach to the problem. As I understand it, responsibility will ultimately be given to the Port of London Authority, a body in which I do not have complete faith. In a letter to me, the Minister mentioned that it had undergone a sea change. That was a somewhat Freudian remark. Will the Minister accept the amendment so that that sea change can also be a safe change?
      Mr. Roger Moate: I have great sympathy with the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale), and I await the Minister's answers with great interest. Many of us will attach great significance to those answers. I hope that the Minister will understand that it is not enough to give us a generalised answer; we need a specific assurance that he

      505
      and his colleagues have grasped the safety aspect of what we are saying. We are entitled to a clear assurance about some of the hazardous areas from which compulsory pilotage has been withdrawn, and we need to know that the Minister is satisfied that the safety of those at sea is not being endangered. That is the point that has been put to us by pilots. I suspect that my hon. Friends, too, have been approached by pilots and persuaded of the importance of the case.
      The Bill proposes that certain areas shall have compulsory pilotage withdrawn from them, and that the limits will be reduced back to the areas of the harbour authorities. Thereafter, the harbour authorities may apply for the limits to be extended, but an appeal can be made against such an application. The Goodwin sands, the north foreland of Kent, the Trinity buoy area and the Thames estuarial area are self-evidently hazardous places, and that is why they were included in the pilotage districts before. The Minister says that it is unnecessary to have compulsory pilotage in those areas, and that the matter should be left to the judgment of the new competent harbour authorities.
      I am certainly one of those hon. Members who needs persuading that it is right, in the interests of safety, to make this withdrawal of compulsory pilotage. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister has some convincing explanations if he intends to oppose the amendment. I hope that he will give us some assurance, perhaps even in the form of accepting the proposals.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Anyone who knows the Mersey knows that, in the past, we have had a number of harbour authorities. We had the Mersey docks and harbours board in my day. Then there were the Manchester ship canal, the Manchester docks and so on. The harbour authorities of Liverpool, Manchester and Garston have made an effort to provide the means whereby the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company could, if required, exercise pilotage functions on their behalf.
      As no commitment has been given, I want to know whether the Government's view is that that can be agreed. At the moment the matter is up in the air, and I do not know what is happening. If the changes are to come about, we should know precisely what is happening, what harbour authorities are likely to take over and what the special problems in certain areas will be. I am not an expert on pilotage, unlike the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thompson), who is a much greater expert than I, because he was a Mersey pilot and understands the business thoroughly. He worked on the river for years; I worked only on the boats that were tied up. We need an answer to this question about what is happening, and whether the best arrangements are being made.
      Mr. Barry Porter: I wish to add my voice to that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who, I am delighted to hear, did some work in Liverpool at some stage of his career. What concerns me is that the Minister will tell us whether commercial or safety interests are to be paramount. That is what the amendment is about. The pilots on the River Mersey have said, both to my right hon. Friend and others, that they fear that the competent harbour authority might pay more attention to commercial interests than safety interests.
      506
      I trust that the Minister will reassure us that safety will be the paramount consideration and that commercial interests will take second place.
      Mr. Roger Stott: The hon. Members for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) and for Faversham (Mr. Moate) spoke about safety, and I suspect that "safety" will be the key word throughout our debates. It is important that we have safety in the forefront of our minds when we talk about pilotage, and it must not be overridden by commercial considerations.
      The hon. Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) has introduced an interesting amendment which highlights the problem of overlapping competent harbour authorities in areas that are dangerous for shipping. I listened to the hon. Gentleman with care when he spoke about the Trinity buoy. At low water there is only 4 ft of under-keel clearance. The sea bottom is notoriously unstable and subject to sand waves, the channel is not easily navigable by radar and it is only 10 miles away from the Essex coast. The Thames estuary and the east coast ports of Felixtowe and Harwich are areas of great activity. There is a great deal of continental traffic and there are many ferries and ro-ro vessels. It is a hive of activity. We must know who is to be responsible for the safe navigation of these waters and which harbour authority will have that responsibility. Emphasis must be placed upon the safe navigation of our waters around the United Kingdom and where pilotage is necessary, pilotage must be provided.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): There is no dispute about safety being paramount, and the Bill places an absolute obligation on ensuring safety. Competent harbour authorities will be subject to the responsibilities and duties that are set out in clause 2. The only matter for debate is where responsibility lies for safety — in other words, where does the buck stop? It has been difficult in the past to determine where the buck stops, and this has had a bearing on the number of pilots that have been required. It has been a matter of great debate within the industry over many years, and it has addressed itself constantly to the sort of pilotage that is required and the number of pilots that are needed.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) spoke about the Queen's harbourmasters. They will not be competent harbour authorities. There are provisions in clauses 12 and 13 for determining the relationships between them and the competent authorities. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) asked about the problems that might be associated with the Manchester and Mersey docks. We hope that agreement will be reached on sensible proposals for the estuary. If that is not possible, clause 12 allows the Secretary of State to call for information that will enable him to make satisfactory arrangements. We hope that there can be voluntary agreement.
      Mr. Porter: We are dealing with a complex Bill that contains many clauses, and one gathers that we shall be doing so for two or three hours. My hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) and I are being told that it is hoped that satisfactory arrangements will be made, but the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has asked for specific

      507
      assurances. We want to know what is to happen, and so do pilots. The response of my hon. Friend the Minister is hardly satisfactory.
      Mr. Spicer: Where there are overlapping responsibilities between competent harbour authorities as defined in the Bill, the authorities will get together and make arrangements for pilotage. If it is found that it is not possible voluntarily to make such arrangements, there are powers in the Bill for the Secretary of State to intervene. I have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) that there is a problem about Gloucester and Sharpness. I shall be introducing an amendment to enable the Secretary of State to deal with problems of passage.
      Mr. Heffer: I think that there is an agreement already between the harbour authorities in the area which I represent in part that will result in a Mersey docks company. In the past there was a tremendous number of ships on the Mersey and a considerable number of pilots were required. The comparison between Merseyside then and now is a tragic one. Those of us who come from Merseyside feel ill every time we look at the river. There is nothing much moving on it but there is still some activity. Some pilots will be needed but there will be others who will not be required. Who will be responsible for paying off the pilots who are not needed? From where will the money come? I want a firm assurance from the Minister. Will the new authorities have to find the money, or will they be given special assistance by the Government to help them overcome the problem?
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Spicer: It seems that we are embarking on a Second Reading debate. We shall be dealing with the details of compensation arrangements and who will pay. The short answer is that the ports will pay. We shall deal with the details of the compensation arrangements as we proceed with our consideration of the Bill.
      Mr. Heffer: There are areas that have special problems because of their history and it is not good enough to say "the ports". There are real problems and the Government should have a responsibility to help the ports to deal with them. If there is a good answer set out in the Bill, I shall be prepared to accept it, hut I am not satisfied with the Minister's response so far.
      Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask questions and as we continue to discuss the Bill he will receive detailed answers. If I may say so, he is asking questions which are related more directly to other amendments.
      The present system of compulsory pilotage is limited. In the London district, for example, compulsory pilotage applies only to ships going to and from ports in London districts. Vessels going through the district are not required to take pilots. I discovered this when I visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale). It is possible for vessels making their way to Ipswich not to take on a pilot as they pass Harwich. We must not run away with the idea that the present system is all-embracing, and that we are ruining it through the Bill.
      The amendments assume that the justifications of the boundaries of the pilotage districts remain valid, although they were drawn up at the turn of the century or, in some cases, earlier. But it must be recognised that conditions
      508
      have changed dramatically since then. Patterns of trade, shipping movements and the available navigational equipment, for instance, have altered beyond recognition.
      I have two further objections to the amendments. First, they would give the Secretary of State responsibility for setting the limits of pilotage, whereas one of the prime purposes of the Bill — I appreciate that this is a controversial matter — is that they should be locally determined. Secondly, they would require the competent harbour authorities to operate jointly in the outer pilotage areas. In some areas, that would be an unecessary administrative complication. Surely it would be better to leave the local competent harbour authorities to decide the best arrangements in their local circumstances.
      We believe that the sensible way forward is to allow the competent harbour authorities to consider the pilotage needs of their ports afresh in the light of modern conditions, without being constrained by a structure that grew up in wholly different circumstances.
      Mr. Brinton: My hon. Friend has made much of the Government's desire to pass on the final and ultimate decision to the local authorities concerned. How does he square that with the Secretary of State's remarks in the House on 9 March? My right hon. Friend said:
      "Safety cannot be inhibited by any pressures. It is the first prerequisite, and all hon Members would expect it to be the prerequisite of any Government, to establish regulations on safety at sea."—[Official Report, 9 March 1987; Vol. 112, c. 23.]
      My right hon. Friend was saying that safety was the Government's responsibility. Should not the Government therefore take responsibility for it in the Bill?
      Mr. Spicer: The Government are taking the responsibility of hoping to obtain the agreement of Parliament to the Bill. We believe that the people who know the local conditions in the approaches to the quayside are the right people to determine the number of pilots that will allow for the safest possible conduct of shipping within their authorities. I know that that is a matter for debate, but it is precisely because the Government believe that the local competent harbour authorities are best able to determine the safe number of pilots that we are trying to persuade the House to accept the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) talked about Stornoway. Stornoway is not a competent harbour authority, because it is not at present an active pilotage district. However, if it wishes to become so, under the terms of the Bill, it can apply for an order.
      Mr. Moate: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would answer a specific question. He tells us that conditions have changed since the pilotage districts were first established. Does that mean that some body or authority has made a scientific reassessment of pilotage needs? In the case of the Thames estuary, for example, has some body decided that there is no longer a prima facie need for compulsory pilotage from the Goodwin sands? Or does my hon. Friend mean that an arbitrary decision has been made, and that hopefully we shall eventually claw our way back to common sense when the needs of the area have been established? If there has been a reassessment, is not my hon. Friend obliged to place the evidence on safety before the House before asking us to reduce the pilotage areas'?
      Mr. Spicer: I am informed that the London pilots accept that there is no need for the Goodwin sands to be covered by compulsory pilotage.
      Dr. Godman: The Minister answered my question about Stornoway. If the authorities in Stornoway were to apply successfully for CHA status, would they then have control over navigation through the Minches?
      Mr. Spicer: The competent harbour authority would not necessarily have navigation control, unless it asked for the appropriate orders. If it did so, it could then take control if it felt that that was part of the CHA's responsibility under the Act, which is to ensure safe passage not only within their areas, but in the approaches to their harbours.
      That partly answers my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate); however, let me reply to his question about how the competent harbour authorities were originally designated. The definition of such authorities arose out of a number of byelaws and historical precedents. There is discretion for those who know what part of the competent harbour area they can designate for compulsory pilotage. If, knowing the local conditions, they are not satisfied about the harbour limits, it is open to them to extend those limits.
      I hope that, even if I have not answered all the questions to everyone's satisfaction, I have at least addressed the points that have been made. I ask the Committee not to accept the amendments.
      Sir Julian Ridsdale: I have had to weigh carefully in my mind the paramount importance of safety. When such a change is made, I feel that safety must overrule what my hon. Friend the Minister has been saying. He has not convinced me, and I have a feeling that he has not convinced many of my hon. Friends. I only wish that he had been able to do so.
      I would emphasise that the matter was considered by the Select Committee on Transport, which recommended that initially harbour authorities should take over responsibility for pilotage districts as they now exist. My view, therefore, is backed up by the Select Committee. Bearing in mind the dangers of the approaches to the Thames estuary——
      Mr. Malcolm Thornton: My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) and others have underlined the fundamental flaw in the Bill. The Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government, is handing over totally, the responsibility for compulsory pilotage in the waters around this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) pointed out, that is to be done without any assessment of whether safety measures have been examined or brought up to date. The point does not concern the number of pilots; it goes to the core of the safety argument. We have heard nothing this evening that convinces us—convinces me, at any rate— that anything has been done that should relieve the Government of the ultimate responsibility for ensuring safety. It is not sufficient to hand over that responsibility to CHAs. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to address his closing remarks to the question of who polices the policemen. We are giving the responsibility to the CHAs, and the Government will have no responsibility for seeing what they do thereafter.
      7 pm
      Sir Julian Ridsdale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton). I agree with him. In view of his experience as a pilot and because I have talked to pilots who know what the waters are like in the Thames estuary, I cannot withdraw the amendment. I must push it to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:
      The Committee divided: Ayes 32, Noes 76.

      Division No. 143]

      [7.00 pm

      AYES

      Anderson, Donald

      Madden, Max

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Beith, A. J.

      Moate, Roger

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Pike, Peter

      Brinton, Tim

      Porter, Barry

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Skinner, Dennis

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Spearing, Nigel

      Gould, Bryan

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

      Stott, Roger

      Haynes, Frank

      Taylor, Matthew

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Trotter, Neville

      Howells, Geraint

      Wallace, James

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Sir Julian Ridsdale and Mr. Malcolm Thornton.

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      NOES

      Ancram, Michael

      Jones, Robert (Herts W)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Bellingham, Henry

      Knowles, Michael

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Bright, Graham

      McCrindle, Robert

      Browne, John

      Malone, Gerald

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Marlow, Antony

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Burt, Alistair

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Butterfill, John

      Neubert, Michael

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

      Norris, Steven

      Colvin, Michael

      Onslow, Cranley

      Cope, John

      Pattie, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Couchman, James

      Portillo, Michael

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Powley, John

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Rathbone, Tim

      Fallon, Michael

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Favell, Anthony

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Forth, Eric

      Spencer, Derek

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Galley, Roy

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Greenway, Harry

      Stern, Michael

      Gregory, Conal

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Harris, David

      Waller, Gary

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Heddle, John

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Wheeler, John

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

      Wilkinson, John

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Jackson, Robert

      Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Richard Ryder.

      Jessel, Toby

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. James Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 3, leave out 'or 1986' and insert '1986 or 1987'.
      This is a constituency-based amendment. At the present time, Scalloway, in the Shetland Isles, is not within a pilotage area although pilotage operations take place. It is the will of the harbour authority — the Shetland Islands council — that Scalloway be formally made a pilotage area. If it had to wait until after the Bill becomes law, it would be unable to license those persons who presently carry out the pilot duties— albeit on a part-time basis—but would be bound by the four-year period from the appointed day.
      It has been suggested that a pilotage order could he promoted prior to the appointed day and that has much to commend it. It was originally suggested by the noble Lord Brabazon that Scalloway should be included as part of the Sullom Voe district. With respect to the noble Lord, I must point out that Scalloway is on the west coast and Sullom Voe is on the east coast, so perhaps, geographically, that is not the most sensible solution.
      If a pilotage order was promoted, there is a possible difficulty — that the Bill as it stands does not make provision for an act of pilotage in the present calendar year, 1987. Obviously, if a pilotage order was to be promoted and passed and if the district was to be an active district as defined in the Bill, the only time that would be available for an act of pilotage to be made and in respect of which a return could be made, would be in the year 1987.
      It is for that reason that this simple amendment is made to extend, by one further calendar year, the years in which returns can be made in respect of acts of pilotage.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: I am advised that our lawyers do not think that this amendment is strictly necessary to achieve what is desired by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)—to have Scalloway made an active pilotage district. However, we accept his point, and to make things clear we are prepared to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the Minister. May I take this opportunity to say how grateful the officials of the Orkney Islands council and the Shetland Islands council, and myself, have been for the co-operation they have received from the officials at the Department of Transport.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 1, as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3

      AUTHORISATION AND EMPLOYMENT OF PILOTS
      Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 15, after 'period', insert 'which are not renewable'
      Liverpool pilots have been concerned that their licences, which are renewed annually, may be taken to be licences for a limited period. If that was so, they would lose the priority that former licensed pilots are given by the Bill in relation to authorisations during the first four years after its implementation. This amendment makes it clear that it is only provisional pilots, whose licences are issued
      512
      for a limited period and are not renewable, as are Liverpool pilots' licences, who will be excluded from the priority provisions.
      Amendment agreed to.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Thornton: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 33, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
      Amendment No. 20, in page 4, line 40, leave out '(a)'.
      Government amendment No. 11.
      Amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 43, at end insert —
      '( ) An authorised person who has made representations under subsection (6) above and who remains aggrieved by a decision of a competent harbour authority to suspend or revoke an authorisation under subsection (5) above may appeal to the Secretary of State who may, if he sees fit, direct the competent harbour authority to withdraw the suspension or revocation and the competent harbour authority shall comply with any such direction.'.
      Government amendment No. 13.
      Mr. Thornton: The introduction to the White Paper tells us, amongst other things:
      "The Green Paper proposed that under the new regime the administration of pilotage should be greatly simplified."
      It also states:
      "In recent years there has been growing concern about the cost of using British ports, in particular compared with those on the continent, and the Government is anxious to seek ways of helping to reduce the costs. One element in a port's costs is the cost of the pilotage service. This has meant that the cost of pilotage is often greater than it need be."
      The Bill does a great deal to achieve those objectives, but it still contains much that is not needed to achieve those objectives, including the two paragraphs I have quoted. In an age when we are trying to reduce bureaucracy — its existence is dependent upon regulations and laws—we can only be successful if legislation is kept to a minimum. With regard to the two paragraphs, the test to determine whether they are necessary is not so simple.
      First, is the intention of the paragraphs met by other legislation or by other self-regulating means? Secondly, are they necessary to reduce costs? I suggest that the answer to the first question is yes, but the answer to the second is no. Before I demonstrate that to be so, I should like to make a general point. Those two paragraphs will give competent harbour authorities unfettered power over pilots. They will be able to exercise that power at will without challenge as to whether, in the exercise of it, they have had due regard, among other things, to natural justice. They will be able to remove a man's livelihood — for whatever reason — without being accountable to anyone. They will be able to exercise the power in a discriminatory manner.
      Bearing in mind the wide terms in which subsection (5)(c) is drafted — that it is the competent harbour authority alone which will decide the number of persons required to be authorised the criteria for such a determination will be the authority's and the authority's alone. Therefore, that determination is capable of variation at will. An authority will be able to use such power in a discriminatory manner. It could, for example, revoke the authorisation of a pilot, who, in fulfilling his functions by virtue of section 742 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894——

      513
      "'Pilot' means any person not belonging to a ship who has the conduct thereof"—
      has, in the commercial judgment of the competent harbour authority, acted in too prudent a manner. However, according to Captain Lecky—considered by professional seamen to be the unquestioned authority in such matters—prudence is the very essence and quality required of those making executive decisions in ship handling, namely, pilots.
      That is a general, but important point. The existence of those two paragraphs that I have quoted will undoubtedly inhibite a pilot from having proper regard to the noncommercial, wider responsibilities of his functions—the public officer element of his responsibilities. I referred to that on Second Reading and to the report produced by the Canadian commission that referred to pilots as "environmental protection officers".
      In the more specific tests to be applied, regard has to be had to the employed and self-employed options that the Bill provides for the continuing pilots. Taking the employed option first, clause 4(2) provides:
      "A competent harbour authority shall offer to employ under a contract of employment any person it authorises under section 3 above".
      Prima facie, it appears that provided a person is authorised as a pilot, the competent harbour authority has to offer that person a contract of employment, and, provided that he is authorised, his contract of employment stands. But is that really the case?
      Section 54 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 says, among other things:
      "(1) In every employment to which this section applies every employee shall have the right not to be unfairly dismissed by his employer."
      Of course, the corollary to that is that every employer has the right to dismiss any employee fairly. That is spelt out in section 57 of the 1978 Act. Surely the fact that the employer has no work and that therefore the employee is redundant falls under that head. That is what the paragraph is all about.
      As the legislation places no requirement on the length of time for which an authorisation has to remain in force, clearly such authorisation can be revoked at the same time as the contract of employment is terminated. In the case of employed pilots, these two subsections are unnecessary, unless it is the aim of Government, with respect to employed pilots, to circumvent the provisions of the 1978 Act.
      Despite the noble Lord Brabazon's protestations to the contrary, pilots believe this to be a strong possibility. That is because these two paragraphs appear to conflict with sections 49 and 50 of the 1978 Act. They give the rights to provide an employee with a minimum period of notice before a contract of employment is terminated and, when taken in conjunction with subsection (6) of this clause, the right to circumvent section 53 of that Act, which requires written notice to be provided. If that is the case, it gives the lie to the repeated statements by individual Ministers and by the Government that continuing pilots will be fairly and equitably treated. That is a source of considerable anxiety to pilots throughout Britain.
      In Committee in the other place the Minister, Lord Brabazon said:
      "nothing in the clause affects the operation of employment protection legislation and a pilot who is employed whether by a CHA or anyone else, and whose authorisation i s revoked
      514
      will remain eligible for the same rights and protection from that legislation as any other employed person."—[Official Report, House of Lords, Public Bill Committee, 9 December 1986; c. 38.]
      On Report in the other place that positive statement was somewhat diluted. At that time Lord Brabazon said:
      "and I made it clear that in our view a pilot's rights in such matters as employment protection should be attached to his contract of employment or other agreement under which he carries out pilotage for the CHA."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 1987; Vol. 484, c. 774.]
      Frankly, the Government statement, "in our view", is just not good enough. I should like to know from the Minister whether these paragraphs are subordinate to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. If they are, they are unnecessary. If not, then the pilots have been misled. A definitive answer is required. What happens if a competent harbour authority refuses to attach such rights, whatever they may be, to the contract of employment?
      I shall now deal with the matter of pilots who decide not to accept a contract of employment with a competent harbour authority and who, in all likelihood, will be self-employed. In this case I submit that these two paragraphs are equally unnecessary. It is acknowledged that employment protection legislation is irrelevant to the self-employed and probably also to the agency scenario. Therefore, the justification for the inclusion of these two paragraphs must rest on costs, but the implementation of their intent will not reduce costs.
      Mr. Porter: I am following my hon. Friend's complicated argument. Is he saying that there is some doubt whether employed pilots have the protection of normal employment and redundancy legislation? Surely that cannot be right. Of course they have, and is that not indicated in the Bill?
      Mr. Thornton: That is the point that I am asking the Minister to clarify. Certainly, on a reading of Hansard from the other place, and especially on Report, the words "in our view" seem to dilute the absolute statement that was made earlier. I seek an assurance from the Minister that that is not so.
      All pilotage revenue will be controlled by a competent harbour authority. In the case of an agency arrangement, the competent harbour authority will presumably negotiate the provision of pilotage services on a fixed-price annual lump sum arrangement and, in the case of the self-employed, on a per ship basis. In effect, always provided that the number of persons authorised is sufficient to do the work, in terms of costs it is immaterial whether there are more persons than are strictly necessary because the costs will remain the same. Indeed, it could be argued that it would be in a competent harbour authority's interests for more persons to be authorised than are strictly necessary, as the service would then be able more readily to cope with unexpected peak demands. Anyone who knows anything about shipping knows that such demands are by no means unusual.
      For the reasons stated, it is clear that neither of these two paragraphs is necessary for either the employed or the self-employed agency regimes. They are unnecessary regulations and should be removed.
      I shall now turn to amendment No. 20. The Bill as drafted requires a competent harbour authority to give written notice of its intention to suspend or revoke authorisation only

      515
      "if it appears to it that the authorised person has been guilty of any incompetence or misconduct affecting his capability as a pilot".
      In speaking to the first amendment, I explained how subsections (5)(c) and (d) give unfettered power to competent harbour authorities, which could, if they wished, use it in a capricious and discriminatory manner. Those paragraphs arc written in terms that are wide enough to steer a large carrier through — wider than some of the channels in many of our ports. The same applies to subsection (5)(b) which says that an authorisation may be suspended or revoked when a person ceases or fails
      "to provide evidence that he continues to have"
      the qualifications required.
      what are those qualifications? Clause 3(2) tells us:
      "The authority may determine the qualifications in respect of age, physical fitness, time of service, local knowledge, skill, character and otherwise to be required".
      It does not say what those qualifications have to be or whether they will be fixed. For that reason, they can be varied from time to time by the competent harbour authority. What is the determinant of the qualifications in respect of character? What does "otherwise" mean? What criteria will be used to determine the degree of physical fitness that is required? Will it be the length of time taken to climb a 30-ft pilot ladder when the ship is rolling in heavy seas? All these maters are capable of wide interpretation and, therefore, capable of discrimination. There could be no objection to the Government amendment if all competent harbour authorities were to exercise their powers in such matters in a responsible, fair and just manner. This amendment would only give those pilots who elect for the self-employed option the same rights as those who accept a contract of employment.
      7.30 pm
      This statement is made against the background of the fact that in Committee in the House of Lords the Minister stated quite categorically that pilots accepting contracts of employment would enjoy all the rights and benefits afforded by the employment protection legislation, just like any other employee. That being so, all employed pilots will, by virtue of section 53 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, be entitled to reasons, in writing, why their contract of employment is to be terminated. That must follow revocation of an authorisation as surely as Might follows day.
      Therefore, it can be argued that, as drafted, the subsection is in conflict with section 53 of the 1978 Act. This amendment seeks only to extend that provision to those who opt for self-employment. However, it will not be sufficient for the written notice to say that the contract of employment is being terminated as a consequence of the revocation of the authorisation. I hope that the Minister will assure us on that point today. If he cannot, it will be clear that this subsection has been drafted to enable CHAs to circumvent section 53 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act to the detriment of their prospective employees.
      Finally, I turn to amendment No. 12. On the clear understanding that the provisions of the 1978 Act apply in full to pilots accepting contracts of employment from competent harbour authorities, especially that a written statement by an employer that an authorisation has been revoked will not be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 53 of that Act, and that the reasons for the
      516
      revocation of that authorisation must also be given—which, it can be argued, will in any case be necessary to satisfy section 57(3) of that Act — this amendment is necessary to ensure the equitable treatment of those pilots not accepting contracts of employment, vis-a-vis those who do, and also to ensure that a competent harbour authority cannot act in a capricious or discriminatory manner.
      If no guarantee can be given that the relevant subsections of clause 3 are subordinate to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, this amendment will be necessary to protect continuing pilots. The recent history of the actions of some port authorities has not inspired confidence in pilots as to their ability to act in a responsible manner, free from prejudice or discrimination. If the continuing pilots are to be treated fairly, as has been firmly promised by the Government, they must be protected against such attitudes.
      Sir Julian Ridsdale: I am glad to support my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), who, with his knowledge and personal experience of piloting, has moved the amendment so ably. He has quite rightly said that paragraphs (c) and (d) are unnecessary, as far as employment of pilots are concerned. I wished to move an amendment which has not been called, that lines 33 and 34 should be deleted. I did that because I want to make it easier for pilots to remain self-employed.
      On Second Reading we were delighted that the Government promised to bring forward an amendment to make the continuing provision of self-employed services by pilots a more viable proposition. With the support of my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) who has great interest in such matters, I went to see the Minister to discuss sell-employment and how we could make that easier. On Second Reading the Minister said:
      "Harbour authorities will have several means of controlling pilotage costs through their control over charges and over the terms of contract for the provision of pilotage services where they are not employing pilots directly. We do not, therefore, consider that it will be necessary for the harbour authorities to have the power to withdraw pilot authorisation on the ground that the number of pilots is greater than is required where pilotage is being provided under a service contract and the pilots may he self-employed. I shall therefore be introducing an amendment in Committee that will limit the powers of harbour authorities in this respect."
      I have examined carefully the Minister's amendment but it goes only halfway to meeting what we tried to achieve when my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State, myself and others went to see the Minister to discuss the ways in which we would be able to keep self-employment, as well as employed status, for the pilots. I am sorry that amendment No. 9 that he has tabled to clause 3, page 4, line 38, goes only part of the way to meeting the principle that he stated on Second Reading. Of course, we should have preferred leaving out lines 33 and 34 of clause 3, page 4, or to go along with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby.
      As the Minister said on Second Reading:
      "Harbour authorities will have several means of controlling pilotage costs through their control over charges and over the terms of contract for the provision of pilotage services where they are not employing pilots directly."
      I should like to repeat once again what the Minister said on Second Reading. I apologise to my hon. Friends for

      517
      repeating it, but it is important for the self-employment of pilots. Running through this entire Bill is the desire to look after not only employed pilots, but also those in self-employment; that is a principle which is very close to our beliefs. The Minister said:
      "We do not, therefore, consider that it will be necessary for the harbour authorities to have the power to withdraw pilot authorisation on the ground that the number of pilots is greater than is required where pilotage is being provided under a service contract and the pilots may be self-employed." —[Official Report, 30 March 1987; Vol. 113, c. 834–5.]
      As I have said, I apologise for repeating that. I hope that the Minister will explain how his amendment meets his undertaking. Amendment No. 9 is only a shadow of what the Minister promised on Second Reading. I cannot advise my hon. Friends that it will make it easier to secure self-employment. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will agree that the aim of my hon. Friends and myself is to make the continuity of self-employment services a more viable proposition. We must pay a great deal of attention to that, because we are in danger of pushing all pilots into salaried employment rather than keeping them self-employed. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says and I shall measure it against what he said on Second Reading, to see whether it is being fulfilled.
      Mr. Porter: I support both my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), who has a detailed knowledge of these matters, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale). I am satisfied that under the Bill employed pilots are protected, but I am not entirely satisfied that self-employed pilots are likely to be protected from capricious or unfair competent harbour authorities. Certainly the detailed amendments do not seem to cover them. When the Minister replies to this short debate I should like him to make it clear beyond peradventure that self-employed pilots will be treated fairly and that competent harbour authorities cannot treat them in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby suggested might be possible under the legislation.
      Sir Anthony Kershaw: I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to put at rest the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friends about redundancy and conditions for pilots.
      There are other difficulties for small authorities. I understand that under the Bill the responsibilities for pilots in the Gloucester-Sharpness area will be transferred to the Gloucester harbour trustees who must employ the pilots, if requested to do so. Gloucester harbour trustees do not want to employ pilots because the harbour has too many. It has 12 pilots and needs only eight. Even if it wished to employ them it does not have any money. Its only income comes from the payments of light dues by vessels coming into Sharpness which has diminished sharply in recent years and is less than the obligations which it would incur towards the pilots. Will my hon. Friend say hat the harbour trustees should do?
      Mr. Michael Spicer: If the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) had been selected it would have affected directly employed as much as self-employed pilots and that would go against the spirit of the Bill.
      I am afraid that I cannot agree that the appeal procedure in amendment No. 12 can be justified. A pilot
      518
      will have his contract of employment or other arrangement with the competent harbour authority. If there is any question of unfair dismissal or breach of contract, his remedies under the 1978 Act will be clear. If he wishes to appeal because he disagrees with the judgments of the competent harbour authority about the number of pilots needed in the port or about whether pilotage is to be provided by directly employed pilots, an agency or by some other arrangement, these matters should be the ultimate responsibility of the competent harbour authority. Therefore, I must ask for amendment No. 12 to be either withdrawn or rejected.
      Amendment No. 7 seeks to remove from the competent harbour authority the power to suspend or revoke authorisations where there are too many pilots in the port and where there is a change in the arrangements for providing pilotage in the port. It would undo much of the purpose of the Bill, which is to allow pilot numbers to be kept in line with the genuine requirements. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) that later we shall discuss compensation and general arrangements for pilots who will no longer receive authorisation because there are too many of them. Therefore, amendment No. 7 would have a direct wrecking effect on the main purpose of the Bill and I must ask for it either to be withdrawn or rejected.
      However, on several occasions it has been suggested that the ability of competent harbour authorities to revoke authorisations on grounds of excess numbers creates a degree of uncertainty for those who wish to be self-employed. Several of my hon. Friends have referred to that matter and it is a fair point. I hope to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich that I have fully honoured the commitment that I gave on Second Reading. We have tabled amendment No. 9 which confines the power of a competent harbour authority to suspend or revoke authorisations on the grounds of numbers to those cases where it employs pilots directly. I thought that that was what my hon. Friend wanted and I am surprised at his general attitude to amendment No. 9. It may have to do with the qualification in the amendment.
      7.45 pm
      We have allowed an exception to the general rule for pilots who are authorised temporarily before the appointed day while the possibility is explored of them transferring to another port where there are vacancies. I would have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would think that that that was a good idea. The representatives of the ports and pilots are discussing the details of such a transfer procedure. From their meetings it seems likely to be agreed that surplus pilots will be authorised for a limited period, for example three to six months, while the possibilities of a transfer are explored. The amendment merely allows the self-employed to benefit from the temporary arrangements in the same way as those directly employed by a competent harbour authority.
      Under the new legislation competent harbour authorities will have several ways of ensuring that costs are kept under control, even where they do not employ pilots directly, principally through their powers to set original numbers of authorisations, to set pilotage charges and through the terms of the contracts or agreements that will govern the provision of pilotage services by agents or self-employed pilots. They will also have the power under clause 3(5) to change the arrangements in the port from an

      519
      agency arrangement to direct employment. Termination of a contract will remain a ground on which pilot authorisations may be suspended or revoked. However, amendment No. 8 makes it clear that the termination of a contract, not a mere alteration, will provide such grounds. I hope that that clears up that point.
      In another place my noble friend Lord Brabazon accepted in principle an amendment requiring a competent harbour authority to give a pilot a document which he could use as a reference if it had been found necessary to suspend or revoke his authorisation on grounds unconnected with his competence, conduct or qualifications. Amendment No. 13 fulfils that commitment.
      My noble Friend also agreed to consider a suggestion by Lord Underhill that the provisions in clause 3(6), requiring a competent harbour authority to give a pilot notice in advance if his authorisation is to be suspended on grounds of incompetence or misconduct, should be extended also to cover cases where a pilot no longer meets the competent harbour authority's qualifications for a pilot—in other words the provisions set out in clause 3(5)(b). We agree that there is some similarity between those types of case, which is why amendment No. 11 will extend the notice provision accordingly.
      Amendment No. 20 would go much further than that in requiring a competent harbour authority, before suspending or revoking an authorisation, to give written notice in all cases, not solely those where misconduct, incompetence or lapsed qualifications are involved. We do not think that that would be appropriate. Therefore I ask the House to support amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 13 and to reject amendments Nos. 7, 20 and 12.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 8, in page 4, line 36, leave out
      `any alteration in or'.
      No. 9, in clause 3, page 4, line 38, at end insert
      '; but the authorisation of a person who provides his services as a pilot under a contract for services may not be revoked by an authority by virtue of paragraph (c) above unless it gave him notice before the appointed day that the number of persons it proposed to authorise exceeded the number required to be authorised and it proposed to revoke his authorisation after allowing him a reasonable period from the appointed day to seek authorisation by another competent harbour authority.'.
      No. 11, in clause 3, page 4, line 40, after `(a)', insert or (b)'.
      No. 13, in clause 3, page 4, line 43, at end insert—
      `( ) Where a competent harbour authority suspends or revokes an authorisation of any person by virtue of paragraph (c) or (d) of subsection (5) above, it shall give him notice in writing—

      (a) stating that the suspension or revocation was by virtue of that paragraph; and

      (b) specifying the duration of the authorisation in question and any previous authorisations granted to that person by the authority.'. —[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

      Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 4, line 49, after 'is' insert '(a)'.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 15, in page 4, line 50, leave out from second 'authority' to 'be' in line 51 and insert
      ';or

      (b) an officer of such a harbour authority as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above, having duties which involve the supervision and management of the authorised pilots for such a harbour,

      520
      shall not by reason of his employment as a pilot or his holding any such office as is mentioned above.'.
      Mr. Wallace: This amendment deals with cases in which the competent harbour authority is also the local authority and, because of the general legislation, which does not permit employees of a local authority to be members of committees of that local authority, would allow exceptions to that general rule in cases of pilotage committees.
      The Bill as it stands allows for an exception in the case of persons who hold any office or employment as a pilot. The cases to which the amendment is directed are such cases as those of a senior or principal harbourmaster who has been a pilot and held a licence but, possibly because he has been taken into administrative duties, is no longer a licence holder and after the passage of this Bill will not be an authorised pilot. Nevertheless, the local authorities in my own constituency, which will be the competent harbour authorities for their areas, certainly feel that it will be of great value to have on committees, particularly the examination committee, which will examine pilots and grant authorisations, and sometimes the disciplinary committee, the services of a senior officer such as a harbourmaster or pilot-master, who has no doubt had long experience and acquired expertise in this area. The local authorities do not wish to find themselves in a position in which the pilots may have representation from their own number, which is right and proper, but they cannot have their officer because he is no longer an authorised pilot.
      This matter has been pressed with the Department of Transport for some time and the Under-Secretary of State gave me the following response in a recent letter:
      "I find it hard to see the case for this in principle, given that management in other local authority departments enjoys no such exemption."
      In response to that, first in terms of Scottish legislation, section 126 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 provides that teachers may be members of the education committee and its sub-committees. No distinction is made between teachers and head teachers, so quite clearly people well up the ladder are permitted to be members of that committee. So what I am suggesting is no major breach of principle.
      The Bill as it stands allows authorised pilots who would technically be employees of the authority to sit on committees. So again there is an exception to the general principle. At present, senior officials do sit on committees. I am thinking in particular of the director of ports and harbours for Shetland Islands council. He is not a licensed pilot, but he has been one and has considerable nautical expertise, and he is a member of the examination committee. That has been allowed under the primary legislation, with the pilotage order and the byelaws which have been made under that. So there is indeed a precedent.
      The other reason why this case is different from other cases, in which it would not be expected that a senior member of management would also be a member of a local authority committee, is that we are dealing with a situation in which that expertise can often be very valuable and necessary. Indeed, there is judicial authority for this. In a case in Glasgow sheriff court back in 1951, the case of Conway v. Clyde pilotage authority, the sheriff, in his judgment, said that the most convenient method of providing a proper committee

      521
      "would seem to be the setting up of small standing tribunal, on which the pilot master and deputy pilot master, the representatives of the pilots and other persons with nautical skill would be in the majority and which would be charged with reporting to the executive committee its conclusions on the facts of the accident …"
      There we have judicial authority for the desirability of having a committee which contains people with expertise.
      If this Bill is not extended in the way that my amendment seeks, I believe that there could be serious prejudice or at least considerable disadvantage to a local authority, which would suffer if on the committee in question the pilots had their own representatives with that expertise but the local authority would have to be represented by a layman, an ordinary elected councillor, possibly. That could be a disadvantage not only to the local authority — in this case the competent harbour authority — but also to the pilot, if it is a matter of discipline, or the person seeking authorisation.
      I think that it is to the advantage of all concerned that the committees in question should have on them people with expertise. I very much hope that the Minister will allow this amendment. As I have indicated, I do not think that there is any major departure of principle; it would only permit what has been happening up to now to continue.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: In another place, as has been said, we accepted an amendment exempting authorised pilots from the normal bar on employees of local authorities from membership of local authority committees, on the grounds that there might be some committees, for instance those inquiring into accidents, on which the up-to-date experience and knowledge of pilots might be useful. These amendments, however, seek to extend that exemption to members of the harbour management. I know that this has been asked for by Shetland Islands council.
      We feel that we must resist the amendment, given that the management in other local authority departments does not have these exemptions and, perhaps more important, other local authorities which already have pilotage responsibilities find no difficulty in dealing with all aspects of pilotage services, including such matters as examination and discipline, despite the fact that their directors are unable to sit as members of the relevant committee.
      For those reasons, we must resist these amendments.
      Mr. Wallace: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has said anything new. I merely observe that the proposal is an enabling measure; it would not compel any local authority which is also a competent harbour authority to engage a senior member of management. Quite clearly, however, we have not over many months now been able to persuade the Minister or his colleagues. I will not press this to a Division.
      Amendment negatived.
      Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4

      EMPLOYMENT ETC. OF AUTHORISED PILOTS.
      Mr. Spicer: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 5, line 24, after 'above', insert
      'who is not already employed by it under such a contract'.
      In a few ports, again in Orkney and Shetland, pilots are already directly employed by the harbour authority in its
      522
      role as the pilotage authority. This amendment is to make it clear that where such arrangements exist, the authority is not obliged to make a fresh offer of employment or to upset existing arrangements.
      Mr. Wallace: I thank the Minister for this helpful amendment. It helps to clarify the position, as I understand the next two Government amendments do. This is something which could have been unclear and could have led to further difficulties, and we certainly welcome this clarification.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move amendment No. 17 in, page 5, line 28, leave out
      'this subsection shall not apply'
      and insert
      'it need not do so'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 18.
      Mr. Spicer: The competent harbour authority will be obliged to offer direct employment to authorised pilots unless the pilots have decided that they need not do so —for instance, if they wish to be self-employed. But the pilots cannot prevent the competent harbour authority from employing them directly should the ports wish to do so. As the Bill stands, there has been some concern that, if pilots wish to be self-employed, ports will be obliged to accept that. The amendments make it clear that the ports merely have the option to accept self-employment or other arrangements.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 18, in page 5, line 30, leave out' this subsection shall not apply' and insert 'it need not do so'.
      8 pm
      Mr. ThorntonI beg to move amendment No. 19, in age 5, line 30, at end insert—
      '( ) Where by virtue of subsection (2) above a competent harbour authority is obliged to offer to employ any person, that offer shall be for not less than one year and shall in respect of remuneration and pension be no less favourable than those recommended immediately before the appointed day for the former pilotage district in which the harbour of the competent authority falls.'.
      Amendment No. 19 contains two elements which I will deal with separately. The first is that the offer of employment under a contract of employment to be made under subsection 2 shall be for a period of
      "not less than one year."
      By tabling the amendment I am not attempting to circumvent clause 3(5), especially paragraphs (a) and (b) which, by and large, will only apply to exceptional cases. I acknowledge that the contract of employment is dependent upon a person being authorised. Should a person lose his authorisation for a proper reason, I accept that, subject to the satisfaction of the provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, his contract of employment should be terminated.
      The amendment is designed to allow pilots and other suitably qualified people with the potential to become pilots to make a commitment to pilotage in the new regimes that will come into existence on the appointed day. Those people are hardly likely to do that in the knowledge that they could be authorised under clause 3(1) and accept a contract of employment under clause 4(2) on one day and then, for whatever reason, have the authorisation

      523
      revoked the next day and, as a consequence, have their contracts of employment terminated. That is not a climate conducive to encouraging the competent and efficient to remain in the profession or attract the right calibre of man into the profession in the future.
      A similar amendment was tabled at the Committee stage in the House of Lords. In a debate on 9 December the Minister said:
      "But I think that the suggestion of a fixed term which may be extended — and I emphasise the word 'may' — during which authorisations will remain in force is a helpful one, and the minimum period of one year would also help the pilots to plan ahead. But we had to think a little about the relationship to a pilot's contract of employment or other agreement with the CHA."—[Official Report, House of Lords, Public Bill Committee, 9 December 1986, c. 31.]
      I could not agree more. Unfortunately on Report in another place on 12 February, the Minister said:
      "On reflection, I am afraid I do not think that this would he desirable. In future a pilot's security about his future must rest on the terms of his agreement with the CHA" —[Official Report, House of Lords,12 February 1987, Vol. 484, c. 758.]
      It is difficult to understand the change in attitude and equally how the results of "reflection" equate with the Government's promise to ensure the equitable treatment of the continuing pilot. That promise, I remind the Committee, was responsible for the pilots' qualified support for reform.
      Secondly, the amendment contains provision to ensure that in financial terms pilots will receive not less than that to which — for a negotiated level of work — they are presently entitled. Reference has already been made to the fact that pilots have given their qualified support to reform on the basis of Government promises ensuring the equitable treatment of pilots. It may be appropriate to quote some of the references. The Green Paper "Marine Pilotage: A Consultative Document" published in December 1984 states in paragraph 8.1:
      "The Government accept that the proposals in this paper will represent a fundamental change in the organisation of pilotage which entails an obligation to ensure that the existing members of the profession are treated fairly and equitably when the new policy is implemented."
      In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) dated April 1986 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
      "But in drawing up the new proposals the Government's aim will be to deal equitably with all those involved including in particular both the pilots who will be retiring and those who will be continuing."
      In a letter to the chairman of the pilots national organisation, the United Kingdom Pilots Association (Marine) dated May 1986:
      "I am satisfied too that what we propose will deal fairly with the members of your distinguished profession."
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in a speech to the pilots' annual conference in October 1986 said:
      "Both I and the Minister for Shipping, Lord Brabazon, will do all we can to ease that transaction and to ensure that you get a fair deal."
      Finally, the White Paper "Marine Pilotage: Legislative Proposals" published in November 1986 states in paragraph 41:
      "The Government …is confident too that the legislation will provide a lasting basis for the future of Marine Pilotage while at the same time providing equitable treatment to the present and future members of a distinguished profession."
      If' those guarantees are to be fulfilled, undertakings would have to be entered into through legislation or
      524
      binding agreement. First, there would have to be guarantees that entry into the new regimes would be at an income level of not less than the present level of earnings and, in addition, that pension contributions would be maintained at the present level.
      Secondly, continuing pilots should be deemed to have been employed since the date of the first licensing. Thirdly, there should be protection of pension rights, including the doubling up of years between the ages of 60 and 65 and the continuation of the enhanced early retirement scheme as an on-going benefit of the fund.
      Finally, the provision of the lump sum compensation agreement should continue for a period of not less than, for example, 10 years. The amendment addresses only the first of those four matters.
      It is interesting to note what the Pilotage Commission had to say in a submission to the Minister responsible for shipping on 6 June 1985. It stated that in any future reform pilotage service the Commission believed that
      "Regard must be had to the fair treatment of the continuing pilots who should not be disadvantaged in respect of their overall service entitlements."
      In a letter to Lord Brabazon, the Under-Secretary of State, dated 26 November 1986, the Pilotage Commission stated:
      "You will recall that in commenting on the Green Paper the Commission stressed that Harbour Authorities should be required to employ pilots on fairly negotiated terms in respect of pay and conditions having regard to the pilots current recommended level of earnings and other entitlements. In this respect the Bill contains no safeguard to ensure the equitable treatment of pilots and I would wish to place on record the Commission's view as to the need for a suitably worded amendment to remedy this defect."
      That point was picked up by Viscount Simon in Committee stage in the House of Lords. He said:
      "We regard this as one of the most important amendments that we have to consider in this Bill, because the Government have given an assurance, I understand, in several forms to the pilots, that those who are at present licensed pilots and who wish to continue as authorised pilots under the new pilotage authorities will be fairly and equitably treated. That is something which I think the whole Committee would wish to see done. But there is nothing at all that I can see in the Bill which makes provision for this and that is why we have put the amendment down."
      In reply, among other things, the Minister said:
      "It is not unusual for legislation to provide that, where employees of one body are being transferred to a new employer, their level of earnings should be preserved. But in this case self-employed members of the profession are being offered employment."
      However, the noble Lord Brightman had already said:
      "I also support the spirit although not the form of the amendment … but an obligation to offer a contract of employment does not have any meaning as a matter of law, unless there is spelt out the terms on which that offer is to be made. I therefore ask: where in the Bill do we find the terms of the obligatory offer? What does the harbour authority have to do in order to fulfil its statutory obligations? Will any old offer do?
      If nothing is spelt out as regards the ascertainment of the terms of the offer, which, by statute, the harbour authority will have to make, it seems to me that the obligation is really meaningless."—[Official Report, House of Lords, Public Bill Committee, 10 December 1986; c. 45–51.]
      So much for the value of a contract of employment.
      At this stage, nothing has yet been spelt out on the terms of the offer. In any case, are the pilots truly self employed? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister obviously does not think so because in the letter to Mr. Wilkin, to which I referred, she stated:

      525
      "and in any case I think you will agree that, although pilots are treated as self employed for Inland Revenue purposes, the profession has few of the characteristics normally associated with self employment."
      On Report, the Government introduced an amendment which is now clause 5 of the Bill. The clause is entitled:
      "Temporary procedure for resolving disputes as to terms of employment".
      In introducing the amendment, the Minister said:
      "I made it plain, and I have made it plain again today, that I did not regard such a guarantee as justifiable, but I recognised that there was a feeling in the Committee that the provision about the offer of employment needed to be supplemented. Several noble Lords suggested that an arbitration procedure should be considered. These amendments set out such a procedure which I hope your Lordships will accept." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 1987; Vol. 39, c. 812.]
      It has been made clear by the pilots that this is no substitute for Government guarantees, a fact that was conveyed to Lord Brabazon by Lord Underhill in a letter which stated:
      "The main question however"—
      it remains unanswered—
      "is what is the Government proposing to insert in the Bill to carry out the many undertakings given to pilots on the conditions of service and benefits for continuing pilots."
      On Third Reading in the House of Lords, the Minister referred at column 791 to the terms of the general guidance that the Secretary of State will give to the arbitration panel under clause 5(3) which he said should, if at all possible, be agreed in advance by both the pilots and the ports. He went on to say that the pilots and ports had already been able to agree on seven general considerations to which the panel would be required to have regard as appropriate in making its determinations while recognising that others may also need to be taken into account in some cases. It appears that the Government believe that they are fulfilling their promises and undertakings to the pilots by the institution of an arbitration panel which shall have to have regard "as it considers appropriate" to some general guidance notes provided by the Secretary of State. I suggest that any reasonable man can come to his own conclusions on whether that is the case. The pilots do not think so, nor do I.
      The amendment is intended to assist the Government to fulfil part of their repeated promises to ensure the equitable treatment of the continuing pilots. The guarantees have been given successively by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Lord Brabazon and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport — the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) —hon Second Reading. I should like to hear from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State how the Government proposes to deliver that commitment. Without such a provision in the Bill, the Government's promises will have been meaningless.
      Dr. Godman: I have good deal of sympathy for the amendment. It states:
      "a competent harbour authority is obliged to offer to employ any person".
      Should not that obligation be extended to those who work on, say, pilot cutters and to those who do pilotage work within ports? I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge
      526
      that I have given him notice, albeit just a few hours, of the questions that I should like to put to him and to put in the Official Report.
      8.15 pm
      Will the Minister give the Committee an assurance that the Bill's provisions will not have an adverse effect on the future employment of licensed river and dock pilots in the port of London and on those employed as licensed dock and harbour pilots in south Wales ports? I need hardly remind the Minister that those men have given excellent service over many years in meeting the needs of shipping in those ports. Is the Minister satisfied that the Bill's provisions for the future employment of and compensation for persons employed in the pilotage service, other than pilotage authority staff, will ensure that such persons are treated no less favourably than those employed by pilotage authorities?
      My next question is important to ancillary employees. What criteria will the Pilotage Commission apply in carrying out its responsibilities under the Bill's provisions for the making of arrangements under schemes which will apply to employees as well — for example, pilot boat crews and others on the staff of the pilotage authorities? The amendment is concerned with the terms and conditions of employment of pilots, but the provisions need to be extended to those other employees. Will the Minister's officials give guidance to the Pilotage Commission to ensure that those employees are dealt with fairly and that the commission applies the same standards in making arrangements for a scheme for such employees as for pilotage authority staff?
      The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) said that concern had been expressed in the other place about the need to treat pilots equitably. I wholeheartedly share that concern, but my concern extends to those who assist pilots to fulfil their responsibilities. The hon. Member for Crosby mentioned clause 5. Does clause 5 cover those employees and other persons in terms of arbitration? Their terms and conditions of employment must not be ignored by the Government or by the competent harbour authorities.
      Mr. Stott: I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) said in a long contribution on an important matter. The Bill's main thrust is clearly to change the procedure whereby pilots are employed. In general, it is reasonable for the Minister to say that when the Government actively seek by legislation to change the terms of reference of any person's employment, certain matters will be taken into account. Those points could be made in respect of steelmen, miners and many other people. I had hoped that Conservative Members would join us in making that point. This does not in any sense dilute what the hon. Member for Crosby said about the group of people whose terms of employment are being changed by an Act of Parliament. As legislators we must be sure that we are fair, just and equitable in the way in which we proceed.
      I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply to his hon. Friend, who made a very telling intervention. I have read the Bill from cover to cover, but I can find nothing to suggest that ancillary staff will have access to an arbitration tribunal if the terms of reference of their employment are altered as a consequence of the Bill. We are talking not only about a change to the pilotage service, but the effect that that will have on ancillary staff in the

      527
      pilotage service—for example, those who are employed on pilot cutters. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenoch and Port Glasgow (Dr. Goodman) asked whether there is anything in the Bill that will benefit them in respect of an appeal to a tribunal. We are talking not only about pilots in the United Kingdom but about others who work on pilot cutters, who also have rights and contracts of employment. We should not lose sight of that fact when discussing changes in pilot employment contracts.
      Like the rest of the Committee, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply on a very important and fundamental principle in the Bill.
      Mr. Wallace: There has been—certainly on Second Reading —consensus on the Bill and on a rationalisation of pilotage services in the United Kingdom. It is essential that Parliament, in taking this step, which will have such impact on the lives and employment prospects of so many people, should address the conditions that will affect the incomes of those people. The guidance note contains a provision which, if applied, could lead to fair and equitable treatment of pilots.
      A distinction must be drawn between employees and those who are self-employed. Self-employment carries risks and uncertainties that are not always felt by employees who enjoy the full protection of employment legislation. The Secretary of State should also include it in his guidance note that when pilots become employed and are brought into the staff structure of competent harbour authorities, their remuneration will have effect and will be noted by other senior officers of the harbour authority.
      I cannot claim any experience in negotiations, but one does not need to have that experience to observe that differentials in salaries often lead to conflict and difficulty in industrial relations. That should be borne in mind when new rates of remuneration are fixed. Throughout the passage of the Bill in the other place and in the time leading up to the presentation of the Bill, pilots have been given assurances that they will he treated fairly and reasonably and that principles of equity will apply. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) is right to press the Government.
      Dr. Godman: How many ancillary employees are employed by the Shetland pilotage authority?
      Mr. Wallace: I would have needed advance notice of that specific question. Perhaps I could write and tell the hon. Member.
      We ask the Government to assure us that what they are proposing will be fair and reasonable. We ask the Minister to say whether there is any way in which the guidance notes can be made more binding on the arbitration panel. The guidance notes that have been agreed between the two sides of the industry will help to ensure some degree of fairness. Will the Minister tell us how they will become more binding on the panel?
      Mr. Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), who quoted the Pilotage Commission and also my noble Friend Lord Brabazon, was being a little unfair because those quotations were taken from a point in the debate before we had agreed to the statutory arbitration procedures to be included in the Bill.
      In answer to the question by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), supported by
      528
      the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), boat crews and other staff employed by the pilotage authorities will be included in the schemes under clause 24 and will be transferred to the employment of the appropriate competent harbour authority. If they are employed by a private company, they will not be included in the schemes because, unlike the pilotage authorities, the employees of private companies will not have been abolished, as it were. If the competent harbour authority decides to make changes in the arrangements for boat services which involve redundancy, the employer will have to meet his obligations in the normal way.
      The only exemption or exception is where boat crews or other people are employed by the pilots themselves. In that case the Pilotage Commission will have discretion to include them in the winding-up scheme. We arc discussing these details at official level with the Pilotage Commission. So far as those who are employed by pilots are concerned, the Pilotage Commission will have discretion over the scheme that it puts forward.
      The amendment is intended to require a competent harbour authority which employs pilots to guarantee rates of remuneration under the new arrangements. We do not agree that it is reasonable for pilots to have a cast-iron guarantee of this sort, because it would severely hamstring the ability of competent harbour authorities to negotiate sensible improvements in the efficiency of the service. The pilots' position is well protected by the arbitration provisions in clause 5. General guidance to the panel will be given by the Secretary of State, and representatives of pilots and the ports have agreed a list of considerations which, in their view, should constitute that advice.
      Among the considerations are the pilots' past earnings, recommended and actual. The British Ports Association has indicated that it would be willing to include these considerations in agreed guidelines for the employment of pilots by port authorities. I have seen no evidence that the ports are seeking to press down levels of earnings or to get pilots' services on the cheap. Even if they were, the arbitration procedure amounts to considerable protection. The going rate of pay for a pilot will, I am sure, remain much as it is at present, but it is important that the competent harbour authorities should have the ability to negotiate with the pilots to see that in return there is an acceptable level of productivity in the port.
      8.30 pm
      It seems likely that most pilots will remain in the pilots' national pension fund. As that is a private pension fund, I do not believe that we should legislate to pre-empt the decisions of the managers. In any event, the British Ports Association, which, with the pilots, will he responsible for the fund under the new regime, has already given undertakings that current levels of benefit will be maintained, subject always to the financial position of the fund. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Thornton: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said and I accept entirely his expression of good will. However, I must press the amendment to a Division because ministerial expressions of good will are not a bankable commodity for the future fair and equitable treatment of pilots. Therefore, I ask the Committee to support the amendment.
      Question put,That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 85.

      Division No. 144]

      [8.31 pm

      AYES

      Anderson, Donald

      Prescott, John

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Stott, Roger

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Taylor, Matthew

      Haynes, Frank

      Wallace, James

      Howells, Geraint

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Mr. Malcolm Thornton and Dr. Norman A. Godman.

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Ancram, Michael

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Arnold, Tom

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

      Ashby, David

      Jessel, Toby

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Jones, Robert (Herts W)

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Baldry, Tony

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Batiste, Spencer

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Bellingham, Henry

      McCrindle, Robert

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Malone, Gerald

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Marlow, Antony

      Bottomley, Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Neubert, Michael

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Newton, Tony

      Burt, Alistair

      Norris, Steven

      Butterfill, John

      Onslow, Cranley

      Chope, Christopher

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

      Portillo, Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Powley, John

      Cope, John

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Couchman, James

      Rathbone, Tim

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Durant, Tony

      Ryder, Richard

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Fallon, Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Favell, Anthony

      Spencer, Derek

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Forth, Eric

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Stern, Michael

      Freeman, Roger

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Greenway, Harry

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Gregory, Conal

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Ground, Patrick

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Wheeler, John

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Harris, David

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Mr. Francis Maude and Mr. David Lightbown.

      Hill, James

      Hind, Kenneth

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Thornton: I beg to move, amendment No. 21, in page 6, line 3, leave out subsection (4).
      Subsection 4(4) states:
      "A competent harbour authority may refuse to authorise any person who is not willing to provide his services as a pilot in accordance with the arrangements made for the provision of such services in its area."
      Prior to Third Reading in the Lords, the subsection read:
      "A competent harbour authority may refuse to authorise any person who is not willing to provide his services as a pilot in accordance with such arrangements as the authority considers appropriate under subsection (1) above."
      That clause was so draconian as to be untrue. It effectively negated all the promises that were made by the
      530
      Government that they would ensure the equitable treatment of pilots. It effectively nullified the intention of the newly introduced arbitration board.
      In view of the statements that the Minister made in the last debate, I do not believe that this subsection, as redrafted, improves on that situation. It is clearly subordinate to subsection (1) of the clause, which states:
      "Subject to subsection (2) below, a competent harbour authority may make such arrangements as it considers appropriate for the provision of the services of authorised pilots in the area in relation to which its duty under section 2(1) above is exercisable (whether under a contract of employment or a contract for services)."
      I have underlined the important aspect to which subsection (4) clearly is subordinate—such arrangements as it considers appropriate for the provision of services. This amendment serves no useful purpose, in that the general terms in which the Bill is written do not impose a duty on any competent harbour authority to authorise any person it does not wish to.
      I shall comment on this amendment in relation to the Minister's remarks in the last debate. He feels that the assurances that have been given are sufficient. Clearly the pilots do not. The guidelines that have been laid down, unless they are contained somewhere in the Bill or schedule, need to be more substantive than a ministerial assurance.
      Nothing that I have heard tonight allays my fears that the pilots may find themselves unable to receive the sort of treatment which the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, promised that they would.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: This amendment may remove the competent harbour authority's right to have the final say as to whether it will offer direct employment. Since that is fundamental to the Bill I must ask my hon. Friend to withdraw it, or we should resist it.
      Mr. Brinton: I have been puzzling over this amendment. I am an amateur and I do not understand the technicalities. However, it seems to me that this paragraph means that the authority that decides on qualifications of a professional pilot also decides whether he should be employed. If he is not willing to be employed by that authority, does that mean that he loses his qualifications to work as a pilot?
      Mr. Spicer: It is the authorisation that gives the pilot his status. It then becomes another matter as to whether he is given sufficient opportunity to be employed.
      Amendment negatived.
      Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5

      TEMPORARY PROCEDURE FOR RESOLVING DISPUTES AS TO TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Thornton: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 6, line 15, after 'employment' insert 'or contract of services'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 24, in page 6, line 22, after 'employment' insert
      'or the kinds of contracts of services'.
      Mr. Thornton: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that all the continuing pilots will be treated in a similar fashion — that is, both those who accept contracts of employment under section 4(2) and those who opt for alternative methods of employment.
      The Government see the clause as a means whereby they are fulfilling the several undertakings given to pilots. The clause was written into the Bill as an amendment on Report in another place. In moving the Amendment, the Minister stated:
      "I believe that with the acceptance of these amendments there can no longer be any doubt in anyone's mind that the Government are fulfilling the undertakings we have given the pilots who continue in the profession, no less than those who retire, that they will receive fair and equitable treatment." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 1987; Vol. 484, c. 813.]
      As worded, this clause will apply only to those pilots who accept contracts of employment and obviously, if not amended in the manner suggested, the Government would not be fulfilling their undertaking—as exemplified by the amendment to clause 4 —to a large number, perhaps the majority, of the continuing pilots.
      This is in line with amendments previously introduced into the Bill by the Government — for example, by amending clause 4(1) to include
      "(whether under a contract of employment or a contract for services)."
      That would make self-employment an option which could be considered. Without it, self-employment is not a starter. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: We have introduced into the Bill, by way of an amendment in the House of Lords, a temporary arbitration procedure with regard to contracts of employment between the competent harbour authorities and the pilots.
      The suggestion in these amendments is that those arbitration procedures should also be applied to a case where pilots are not directly employed by the competent harbour authority. We believe that to be unnecessary, since any such arrangements can be introduced only if there is an agreement between the parties.
      There is a further point. Contracts for services may, in some cases, be placed as a result of competitive tenders put out to two or more possible contractors. Clearly, arbitration would have no place in determining what the terms of a contract resulting from competitive tendering should be.
      I must ask my hon. Friend to withdraw this amendment or urge the Committee to resist it.
      Mr. Thornton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move amendment No. 23 in page 6, line 20, leave out second 'the' and insert 'an'.
      This is a technical amendment to make it clear that the chairman and or members of the arbitration panel may he different in different cases of dispute.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 6, line 26, leave out from first 'of to 'by' in line 27 and insert
      'three members, one appointed by the Secretary of State, one'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 26, in page 6, line 26, leave out from first 'of' to `by' in line 27 and insert
      'three members, one, the Chairman, appointed by the Secretary of State, one'.
      Government amendments Nos. 27 and 28.
      Mr. Spicer: Amendment No. 26, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) makes it clear that the bodies representing the ports and the pilots are each to appoint one member of the arbitration panel. It also provides that the member of the panel appointed by the Secretary of State should be as chairman. I am happy to accept that amendment, and therefore not to press amendments Nos. 25 and 28. However, I would wish to move amendment No. 27, which complements my hon. Friend's amendment and which I will ask the Committee to accept.
      Mr. Hill: I am afraid that there are difficulties here. Certainly, the British Ports Association, Associated British Ports and the United Kingdom Pilots Association have all raised serious queries about the arbitration panel. We understand that there will be a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State who will be completely independent —that goes without saying. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will reaffirm that when he sums up. Also, the chairman would have to be of a legal persuasion. He would have to have some experience in arbitration matters and would perhaps have served a considerable time on some industrial panel. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm those points.
      One of the queries from the United Kingdom Pilots Association is, how will the operating costs of the panel be funded? I am sure that there is a fairly simple explanation but the association does not seem to understand that side of the matter yet. When is the arbitration panel scheduled to be in operation? Is there some time scale that my hon. Friend the Minister could give us?
      Another difficulty has arisen. The British Ports Association is not necessarily representative of all the employers in the ports.
      Mr. Stott: It is not.
      Mr. Hill: I am receiving confirmation of that fact from the Opposition, so it must be right. Associated British Ports is not a member of the British Ports Association. There are rumours — no doubt the Department of Transport will know whether they are true — that other ports are leaving the British Ports Association and that there may be difficulties in the future in getting a representative port view on the arbitration panel.
      Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman talked about the chairman of the panel in his view being someone from the legal profession — perhaps a QC, as is often the case with arbitration panels. Would he expect one of the other two members to be a practising pilot?
      Mr. Hill: I think that the Minister will agree with me that that would be the right way to proceed. The difficulty is that the arbitration panel would at the same time have to have a fair voice from the port employers; it would not necessarily have to be weighed completely towards the pilotage employees.
      Associated British Ports is suggesting that the two other members of the panel—the hon. Member for Greenock

      533
      and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned the pilot—can either be regarded as acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, in which case they should have no connection with either of the parties subject to the arbitration, or they should be direct representatives chosen by the parties concerned. I know that Associated British Ports will have no argument about that. Therefore, that confirms what I said to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow.
      The Bill currently does not provide for either of those alternatives. The pilots will be able to choose a direct representative, which is fair and equitable, but the port industry nominees envisage having no direct connection with the port subject to arbitration. Therefore, the essential balance of the three-man panel will be lacking. The idea is being floated that if the essential balance is lacking it may mean that the port representative might be employed by a competitor and might have an interest in achieving a result favourable to the pilots. I do not feel that there is any foundation in that, but, at this stage of setting up an arbitration panel, the port authorities will be just as sensitive to the make-up of the arbitration panel as the pilots themselves.
      A suggestion has been made to a Mr. Finney of the British Ports Association that the list of the harbour authorities' representatives should consist of two names —that is, on the panel itself—nominated by Associated British Ports together with British ports authorities' representatives. I can see that that could be carried still further. If there are port authorities that are not members of the British Ports Association, obviously they would have to have some understanding as well.
      Mr. Stott: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says. However, I wonder whether it would be more beneficial if he were to use his undoubted talent and powers of persuasion to persuade Associated British Ports to rejoin the British Ports Association. That would resolve the problem completely.
      Mr. Hill: I shall definitely do what little I can to achieve that but it is far beyond a lone Back-Bencher's commitment. I know that all the bodies involved in this tussle for control — that is what it is — will be listening this evening and they will have to finalise that between themselves. I think that there will be an equitable arrangement on the ports side.
      All I am saying is that all is not harmony and light on the matter of the arbitration panel. There will have to be more talks in depth with the possible members of the panel and I certainly feel that the pilots must have a firm representation. The ports authorities must have a firm representation and I could even see, as was mentioned earlier, that there might be an ancillary staff representation, because my understanding of the debate is that their voice will also be heard in arbitration matters.
      Obviously my hon. Friend the Minister will not be able to give me a positive answer. He will have to find out from his Department whether there are difficulties. I believe that more port authorities are thinking of leaving the British Ports Association. However, having said that, I see a glimmer of a message coming from the Box. Perhaps if I stall for 10 seconds or more I might find out whether it will help. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has a good grasp of the Bill and is only too anxious to cast some light on it this evening.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: I am told that the note does not help much, so I shall try on my own.
      In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), the costs will be met from the Pilotage Commission funds, which were part of the scheme that was proposed to the Secretary of State. They will come into operation as soon as there is a dispute that makes that necessary. That could be before the appointed day, if necessary.
      As for the machinations between ABP and the BPA, I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Test would expect me to join in those. It is for those bodies to come to an agreement. It is certainly the intention of the Government that the port should be properly represented. If there is any doubt about the extent of representation for the ports, the Secretary of State has powers under the Bill to make regulations, after considering the views of the parties. The position is clear: we want representatives of the ports to be on the arbitration panel.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 26, in page 6, line 26, leave out from first 'of' to `by' in line 27 and insert
      'three members, one, the Chairman, appointed by the Secretary of State, one'.
      No. 27, in page 6, line 29, after 'and', insert 'one by'. —[Mr. Michael Spicer.]
      Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 6, line 42, at end insert—
      '(4A) The references to contracts in subsection (1) above do not include contracts of employment entered into before the appointed day for provision of services as a pilot before that day.'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 80.
      9 pm
      Mr. Spicer: The temporary arbitration procedure is intended to apply to cases in which a formerly self-employed pilot has been taken into employment by the competent harbour authority. In a few ports, notably Orkney and Shetland, pilots are already employed under well-established arrangements. There is no need, therefore, for special arbitration arrangements to apply. The amendments would exclude those cases from the temporary arbitration procedure.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6

      PILOT BOATS
      Mr. Thornton: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 7, line 17, leave out
      'is satisfied that it is suitable for use as a pilot boat'
      and insert
      'complies with regulations for such boats made by the Secretary of State under section 21 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979'.
      I can speak with considerable experience when I say that there are few things more vital to the safety of pilots than those small boats that they use to board and leave vessels. On Report in the House of Lords, the Minister stated his view that the suggestion that the Secretary of State should approve and license pilot boats would be unnecessary and it would be sufficient for the competent harbour authorities to have that power.

      535
      On Third Reading the Minister stated:
      "Our approach encompasses belt and braces—first, the regulations under the Merchant Shipping Act, for which I have promised to bring forward proposals; and secondly, the new statutory obligation on the CHA".—[Official Report, House of Lords,5 March 1987; Vol. 485, c. 798.]
      The amendment will not remove responsibility for approving or licensing pilot boats from competent harbour authorities. It will remain with them but it will provide them with clear minimum standards to ensure that they do not approve or license a boat that is not completely suitable, always bearing in mind that, for many competent harbour authorities, that will be a new responsibility outside their previous experience.
      Pilot boats operate in weather conditions in which the only other boats of comparable size likely to venture to sea are the lifeboats of the RNLI. I am sure that the House will not overlook the fact that, in terms of serious injury and fatality, pilotage is proportionately about the second-highest risk profession in the country. Two examples within recent memory will be sufficient to support that statement. A Falmouth boat pilot lost his life attempting to board a passenger ferry that was desperately seeking shelter, having been damaged in heavy seas. It was subsequently found that the pilot boat was defective in some respects.
      A Blyth pilot lost his life attempting to board a comparatively small ship in bad weather. The pilot boat had not been propertly manned and the Department had to write to the Blyth pilotage authority. The question of manning levels for pilot boats is, I accept, not something that can be applied right across the board. However, I know—again from personal experience—how difficult it is to get a man out of the water if the boat that is attempting to extricate him has insufficient crew on board. In most cases a minimum of two crew members is required. The man in the water is extremely heavy. If he is unconscious or injured he is virtually incapable of helping himself to get out of the water. In the operation of boarding and taking off pilots, it is essential that competent harbour authorities have regard to minimum standards, including the quality and standard of the boat and of manning levels. Safety must be paramount.
      I do not believe that the Government subscribe to the view that the safety record has been satisfactory, yet the standards contributing to that record were, in the absence of legislative regulations, set by pilotage authorities, that are independent, non-commercial and non-profit-making organisations. If we assume that in future the same constraints will not apply, I suggest that the record is hardly likely to improve. However, if what the Minister said on Third Reading in another place is correct—he said that it was intended to make regulations under section 21 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 for pilot boats to which the competent harbour authorities will need to have regard in the exercise of the statutory obligation imposed upon them by the clause—I would be more than happy and would wish to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Stott: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) has explained why he feels that it is necessary that the Minister complies with his wishes on pilot boats. lie has done so from a wealth of personal experience. He is the only Member of this place who is a qualified pilot; he is the only Member who has boarded a ship from a pilot cutter. I suspect that I am one of the very few who have assisted him in boarding a ship.
      536
      I spent five years in the merchant service both as a helmsman and an able seaman. In leaving and entering the ports of the United Kingdom, or ports around the world, it can be one of the most difficult tasks to bring the pilot on board. In normal circumstances it is a reasonably easy thing to do, but those of us who have been to sea and have spent some time on it recognise that the sea is not always as kind as it should be. There are conditions when the taking on board of a pilot can be an extremely hazardous operation. I have been involved in such operations and I concur with what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is extremely dangerous.
      The Bill will transfer responsibility for pilotage, including pilot cutters, those who work on them and the delivery of a pilot on a ship, to competent harbour authorities, and we must be sure that we have the safety of those men and those on the pilot cutters much in our minds. The amendment will not remove responsibility for approving or licensing pilot cutters from the competent harbour authority. It does not seek to remove that which the Bill intends. The amendment merely provides that the authority should comply with the regulations for such boats that are made by the Secretary of State under section 21 of the 1979 Act. The clause is comprehensive and sets out in detail requirements for safety at sea and on board ships. If the Minister can satisfy us that the competent harbour authorities will have the relevant obligation laid upon them, I, like the hon. Gentleman, will not press the amendment to a Division.
      Dr. Godman: I have no pilotage experience but I have some experience of small fishing boats. I know that a small boat that is not robust can present formidable problems for those on board when they find themselves in choppy water. I was particularly struck by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), that there should be at least two crew members on small boats. I agree wholeheartedly. A small boat might be corning alongside a much bigger vessel in choppy weather, for instance—I am talking about the Clyde and the Forth, but even on an estuary such as the Humber we rarely see the sea as calm as the proverbial mill pond. Someone will be needed at the wheel, and another person will be needed to take hold of the rope ladder; a third person may also be needed.
      I should also like small boats to carry an immersion suit for each of those on board, with an extra one for the pilot, in case the boat gets into difficulties. I do not know whether regulations will be brought in concerning immersion suits for small vessels — presumably those under 15 m in overall length—but I feel that such suits, and at least two crew members, are necessary for the safety of the pilot and the crew.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: On Second Reading, I confirmed the undertaking by my noble Friend Lord Brabazon of Tara in the other place to bring forward proposals in regulations on the survey of pilot boats before the implementation of the Bill. That remains our intention. The Bill at present places an immediate obligation on the harbour authority to satisfy itself as to the safety of pilot boats, but the amendment would remove that obligation. It would mean that pilot boats would not be subject to any regulations at all until the regulations under the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 had been made.
      I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) and the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr.

      537
      Stott) that such regulations will be made. However, it will take time for our proposals to be brought forward, for the interested parties to be consulted and for the regulations to go through the appropriate statutory procedures.
      The amendment would open up the possibility of a gap after the appointed day, during which boats would not be regulated at all. As has been implied by hon. Members who have spoken, it would be to everyone's benefit for the competent harbour authorities to be placed under a statutory obligation to approve pilot boats regardless of what is done under the Merchant Shipping Act. The specific duty on a CHA to satisy itself as to the suitability of pilot boats is a more stringent requirement than that contained in the existing legislation. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to pursue his intention to withdraw the amendment.
      Dr. Godman: I know that it is not the Minister's responsibility, but, under the clause in its present form, would such vessels be subjected to annual inspections by, say, inspectors from the Department of Transport?
      Mr. Spicer: Yes. — Sorry. When I answered that question, I was looking at my expert advisers and thought that I saw a nod. However, it was a shaking of the head. I withdraw my answer; in fact, that is why we are bringing forward the regulations.
      Dr. Godman: I was heartened by the Minister's assurance, and I am encouraged by his honesty. However, this is a very serious matter. The owners of small fishing vessels have to submit their craft for inspection. A similar recommendation ought perhaps to be introduced for these small vessels.
      Mr. Spicer: That is why the Bill imposes an obligation on the harbour authorities to ensure that they are safe. That is one of the great improvements that will be brought about by the Bill.
      Mr. Thornton: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's assurance. I merely ask him, as the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 has been on the statute book for some time, to do everything in his power to expedite the procedure for bringing forward the necessary regulations.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 7

      PILOTAGE DIRECTIONS
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 7, line 37, after 'apply' insert
      `to ships of less than 20 metres in length or'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this we shall take Government amendment No. 35.
      Mr. Spicer: The Bill as drafted provides for no general exemption from compulsory pilotage for pleasure craft or other small vessels. The decision about which vessels need to have pilots is best left to the competent harbour authorities. There is no reason to believe that any of them would be foolish enough to try to place a pilot on every
      538
      small yacht that entered the harbour. However, as the anxieties of yachtsmen have been expressed to me and to Lord Brabazon by hon. Members on both sides, and as we believe that it is of little practical significance, we have decided to retain the exemption for the compulsory pilotage of yachts. Amendment No. 33, therefore, exempts all vessels of less than 20 m in length.
      Amendment No. 35 is a drafting amendment to omit "vessels" and to insert "ships", which is the term that is used throughout the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Thornton: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 7, line 41, leave out paragraph (a).
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 83, in page 7, line 43, leave out 'other'.
      No. 36, in page 7, line 44, at end insert
      `and ( ) any persons representative of public bodies appearing to it to have an interest in the area to which a pilotage direction applies'.
      New clause 1 — Temporary procedure for resolving disputes as to provision of pilotage directions—
      ' —(1) Where any dispute arise between a competent harbour authority and any of the parties mentioned in section 7(4) above—

      (a) as to what the terms of any provision in any pilotage direction should be; or

      (b) as to whether the terms of any provision in any existing pilotage direction should be modified,

      and that dispute cannot be resolved by negotiations between them, any of the parties to the dispute may refer the dispute to the panel appointed in accordance with subsection (2) below and the panel shall determine what the terms of that provision should be and the pilotage direction to which their determination is to apply ("relevant direction").
      (2) The panel referred to in subsection (1) above shall consist of a member appointed by the Secretary of State and two members appointed respectively by a body appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of harbour authorities throughout the United Kingdom and a body appearing to him to be representative of the owners of vessels throughout the United Kingdom.
      (3) Where the panel make a determination under subsection (1) above then, subject to any agreement to the contrary between the parties and to the effect of any subsequent determination under this section—

      (a) on and after the date on which the determination is made any relevant direction issued before that date shall have effect with the substitution for any inconsistent provision of a provision in the terms determined by the panel; and

      (b) any relevant direction issued on or after that date shall contain a provision in those terms.

      (4) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as he thinks fit as respects the referral and determination of disputes under subsection (1) above and such regulations may, in particular, provide that the expenses of such referrals and determinations are to be borne by the Pilotage Commission or by such other person as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
      (5) The preceding provisions of this section shall cease to have effect on such date (not being earlier than the expiry of the period of three years beginning with the appointed day) as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe, but no such order shall affect the provisions of any pilotage directions continuing in force at that date.'.
      Mr. Thornton: It is acknowledged that at present most harbour authorities normally have to consult the General Council of British Shipping and sometimes the pilotage authority before making or amending regulations regarding the movement and berthing of ships. It is also acknowledged that under the present pilotage law, the

      539
      Pilotage Commission has a duty to consult those persons who are likely to be affected when they fulfil their function of reviewing pilotage areas and non-compulsory areas, with an ultimate right of objection to the Secretary of State. Those duties, to consult both specifically and generally the General Council of British Shipping, really belong to an age long gone when British shipping flourished and when shipowners were based in most major ports and could be identified. That is not the case today.
      British ships using British ports represent, sadly, only a very small percentage of all ships using British ports, and there are fewer British shipowners with any local base.
      The Green Paper—this theme is repeated in the White Paper—tells us:
      "The statutory framework and administration of pilotage should he simple, with responsibility for decisions resting at the local level as far as possible, to take account of the differing navigational hazards in different harbours."
      In Committee in the other place, the Minister said:
      "In addition, to give my right hon. Friend the power to override the decisions of the competent harbour authorities in this area would represent a serious dilution of the responsibility for pilotage which it is the intention of the Bill to place fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the competent harbour authorities…As in the case of harbour authorities' responsibility for the safety of navigation, the responsibility for pilotage would be laid unequivocally on the harbour authorities…We would immediately be back in these sterile debates which have characterised the existing system, with local issues being referred up to the national level and being bedevilled by national arguments. —[Official Report, House of Lords, Public Bill Committee, 9 December 1986; c. 15–16.]
      It has been said that the Bill is designed to simplify the statutory framework and administration of pilotage. In a Bill designed to place responsibilities for pilotage fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the local competent harbour authority, surely it is an anachronism to perpetuate a consultation process that belongs to another age. Therefore, on that score, it is unnecessary.
      Mr. Moate: Is my hon. Friend going so far as to suggest that the users of a port have nothing to contribute by way of their experience or knowledge regarding what should or should not be the pilotage requirements of a particular area?
      Mr. Thornton: I am not saying that, nor am I responsible for the drafting of the Bill. My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am profoundly unhappy about many parts of the Bill. However, I am dealing with the Bill as it stands and accepting the reality of the situation. I am seeking to find an equitable course to steer between what the Government are seeking to achieve in the Bill and what I believe is a proper course regarding the competent harbour authorities' future responsibilities for pilotage areas.
      I find it odd that we should have a particular provision for a special group in the Bill when, for the reasons that I have suggested, it no longer seems relevant. The Minister has said that evidence has shown that such involvement leads to "sterile debates". Such a consultation process has contributed in no small measure to the destruction of the present system.
      Mr. Moate: I was directing my inquiry to my hon. Friend's first amendment, in which my hon. Friend asserts that there should not be even the necessity for consultation with the regular users of a port. In that sense, is my hon.
      540
      Friend saying that he does not believe that regular users of the port have anything to contribute to the consultative process?
      Mr. Thornton: If my hon. Friend had listened to what I said, he would know that the answer to that is no. I do not believe that regular users should not be allowed to contribute. Clearly they have something to say. Why has the General Council of British Shipping been singled out in this respect? I believe that that is unnecessary.
      I have al ready said that pilotage is essentially a local matter and that consultation should be a local level only. I believe that pilotage areas—my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) discussed this when we debated amendment No. 1—are best determined at local level. Indeed, they have grown up over the years as a result of custom and practice and with regard to what is necessary in the particular area.
      Under the terms of the Bill it is possible for a competent harbour authority to decide to change its pilotage area. It can do so in an almost arbitrary fashion. I believe that there should be a local input, which may well include the type of port users referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and would certainly include those local authorities that have coastal waters that may be affected by a change of pilotage areas and boundaries. Coastal authorities may face the prospect of an oil spillage or spillage from a ship carrying chemicals—there are some strange cargoes carried around our coasts at the moment.
      The prospects of environmental pollution, damage or disaster are not matters that any responsible coastal authority can lightly contemplate, nor should they be excluded from any consultation process. They have the right to be consulted if a competent harbour authority decides to change the pilotage area. It is clear that the public have a vital interest in the safety of navigation in port areas. They have an interest that can be satisfied by including the amendment in the Bill.
      Mr. Wallace: The group of amendments that we are discussing contains new clause 1 in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. I shall speak to that new clause later.
      First, I should like to comment on some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton). I certainly accept much of what he said about the involvement of the public and of interests going beyond those mentioned in the clause as it stands. I do not agree with his suggestion that the owners of vessels that customarily navigate an area should be excluded. As users, they clearly have a very direct interest in the area and no doubt they have considerable expertise. The important thing is that they customarily navigate the area, going in and out of the harbour. If they have done that for many years, they will have something worthwhile to contribute. It would be regrettable if such people were not statutorily involved.
      The purpose of the new clause is to provide a safeguard against the imposition of compulsory pilotage on ships navigating within harbour limits where at present compulsory pilotage does not apply. In discussing the previous set of amendments the Minister made a concession to people with yachts. Perhaps he should consider extending this concession to the many small

      541
      coastal vessels and small cargo ships that trade along our coasts and which up to now have not been subject to compulsory pilotage directions.
      We are talking about making provisions that would allow the owners of such ships to be involved in an arbitration procedure if they were dissatisfied with the outcome of negotiations or consultations between the competent harbour authority and themselves. On the face of it, an exemption for ships rather than for masters—this is in clause 8—may look like something that has to be justified. The first ground on which I seek to justify it is that the practice of exemption existed even before the Pilotage Act 1913 was enacted and there does not appear to be any evidence that that has in any way impaired safety over that long period.
      We are also talking about ships that regularly ply the coast and use harbours. Obviously, the masters of such ships use the harbours. There are many harbours, and it is almost impossible to suggest that a master should be allowed an exemption certificate for each of the harbours that he has to navigate in the course of a year.
      A further important consideration is that cost of pilotage for a fairly small ship can be high. Some estimates put it as high as 30 per cent. of the entire voyage revenue. We have heard many complaints over recent months about the increasing problems that the British merchant fleet is facing. These ships are under the British flag, and to put another imposition on them, in some cases perhaps as much as 30 per cent. of their entire voyage revenue, would be seen by many people as another hurdle to be overcome and another pressure contributing to the diminution of the British fleet. The new clause proposes that there should be some form of arbitration, and the scheme of arbitration suggested is the one that was originally in clause 5 before it was amended. The new clause would probably pass the legislative test and be a competent provision. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to that, because a competent harbour authority would effectively have a monopoly and be able to impose compulsory pilotage in the event of a disagreement.
      All that we ask and all that the new clause seeks is that, where disagreements exist and exemptions have not been forthcoming, there should at least be some independent arbitration to resolve such matters. I hope that the Minister will respond in positive terms.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Peter Griffiths: I find some merit and attraction in new clause 1. I rise to seek clarification and to ask about the effects of amendments Nos. 34, 83 and 36 on the procedures that would follow subsequent to a decision by a competent harbour authority to extend the powers of compulsory pilotage.
      There appears to be a strange anomaly in that if the competent harbour authority wishes to extend compulsory pilotage outside the harbour area it has no direct powers to do so, but must seek a harbour revision order which, under the Harbours Act 1964, as I understand it, is granted by the Secretary of State and is subject to an appeals procedure. Therefore, the owners of vessels that are affected by this and that will be affected in cost terms by the imposition of compulsory pilotage would have a
      542
      straightforward appeals procedure and the ability to object to someone who was not a concerned party with the making of the order.
      However, oddly, when the competent harbour authority seeks to extend compulsory pilotage within the harbour, the Bill provides for consultation with the owners of vessels and other persons who carry on harbour operations. I am sure that that is valuable, but it appears to be markedly less helpful to the operators of vessels than are the provisions that apply outside, where there is a third and independent party, the Secretary of State. After all, the right to be consulted by a competent harbour authority, which is itself already committed to extending the powers of compulsory pilotage, does not seem to confer much opportunity on the operators of vessels to object to such an order.
      New Clause 1 may well get round that by providing a system for arbitration which appears to be more fair. However, before deciding my attitude to the new clause and, indeed, to the amendments that have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton). I should like the Minister to explain why he considers it essential that we have a system of appeals outside the harbour area, whereas we only have consultation within the harbour.
      Dr. Godman: I have some sympathy with new clause 1. However, I must express some reservations about amendment No. 34 because it seeks the deletion of subsection (4)(a) which refers to
      "the owners of vessels which customarily navigate in the area to which the proposed direction would apply."
      There is no mention of the General Council of British Shipping. I think that that is what the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) said in response to an intervention by his hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate).
      My reservation is that such interested parties have a right to be consulted. Only today I received a letter from Captain Leitch, director of J. and A. Gardner and Co. Ltd. shipowners in Glasgow, which refers to the wide experience of his firm in passages between Cairnryan and Faslane on the Clyde. Such a firm should be consulted by the relevant competent harbour authority, but this amendment would deny it that opportunity.
      Incidentally, Captain Leitch seeks to discipline me for misleading the House recently. He refers specifically to my reservations about this amendment and states:
      "You stated that no vessel of over 500 tonnes can proceed along the channel past the entrance to the Holy Loch without a pilot because of stringent local regulations."
      This is where his company's experience and knowledge comes in—
      "This is totally misleading and incorrect as we have vessels at present whose Masters/Mates hold pilotage certificates trading every day from Cairnryan to Faslane."
      I am pleased to put Captain Leitch's stricture on the record because I did not mean to mislead the House. His firm has years of experience of navigation on the Clyde, to such an extent that its captains and mates have exemption certificates.
      I have listened with great sympathy to many of the speeches of the hon. Member for Crosby tonight, but such a shipping company has every right to be consulted under the clause. Captain Leitch continues:

      543
      "The regulations for this area state that any vessel over 100 tonnes requires a pilot but the Master/Mate of such a vessel can also hold a pilotage certificate to cover the upper reaches of the River Clyde."
      Firms with that sort of everyday involvement in the traffic on the River Clyde cannot be denied consultation.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being so honest about misleading the House, but he is being rather hard on himself. What he said was absolutely correct: a vessel would not be allowed to ply without a pilot. The company has assumed the pilot to be an external pilot, but providing the master has a pilot's certificate, he is the pilot.
      Dr. Godman: As always, my hon. Friend has shown his innate kindness and courtesy, and I am grateful for it.
      Without labouring the point, shipping firms that use the Clyde, the Forth, the Humber, the Thames, the Dee or the Don on a regular basis must have some recourse to consultations with competent harbour authorities. I hate to say this, but in this case the hon. Gentleman has sailed into danger with this amendment.
      Sir Paul Bryan (Boothferry): I support the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on the necessity to consult competent shipping companies about this matter.
      I should like to report to the Minister a slightly more optimistic situation under the Bill on pilotage on the Humber. At present pilotage is compulsory throughout the Humber district. That does not mean that every ship must take a pilot. Certain classes of small ships are exempt from compulsion and exemption certificates are available to some masters who navigate frequently in the district and who pass an examination of their competence in local knowledge.
      Associated British Ports, which is the competent harbour authority there, will be seeking to preserve this principle of compulsory pilotage for all but the smallest vessels. However, we believe that, with the possible exception of vessels carrying dangerous and hazardous cargoes, many ships which regularly trade in the Humber should be able to qualify for certificates. It will be necessary for masters to pass an examination in competence and local knowledge, and some proficiency in the English language is obviously required.
      On Second Reading I pointed out how highly successful the wharves on the Trent and the Humber are. Some of these suggest there is no need for compulsory pilotage downstream from Hull since, in contrast with the higher waters, the navigation is comparatively straightforward. Therefore this argument is put forward by some of those using Goole, Gainsborough and so on. They will obviously be consulted, but at the end of the day I do not think that the harbour authority is going to be able to let up much on its side.
      Mr. Moate: I am sure that those affected will be grateful for the assurances that my hon. Friend is relaying to them, but the point of the new clause, as has already been mentioned, is that the port authority should not be judge and jury in these matters. If, for example, ABP or any other port authority were to seek to extend compulsory pilotage to smaller vessels, is my hon. Friend saying that it is right that that authority— ABP in this particular case—should be judge and jury?
      Sir Paul Bryan: I am reporting on the situation as it now and, as almost complete compulsory pilotage operates on the Humber now, any change would be in the other direction altogether, so I do not think that there are great fears.
      We must be so cautious on the lower Humber—every hon. Member has his own river to think about—because of the very wide variety of vessels there. As well as the general run of cargo vessels there are numerous tankers carrying gas and oil products, and there are passenger ferries. Of course, some of the passenger ferries do have certificates. The speed of vessels, as well as their size and type, varies tremendously, and then there is the variety of traffic in the presence of substantial petro-chemical installations. All these things make this area a dangerous one, although so far it has been a safe one.
      The greater difficulty ahead of us is that now the wharves are going to be, shall I say, under the authority of the harbour authorities. They think that they are going to have very much less flexible arrangements than they have been used to. These arrangements are very important indeed to these wharves. It is the duty of the harbour authority now that it is in charge to preserve both the flexibility and the safety.
      Mr. Moate: I support fundamentally the principles of this legislation, but there is a sense of disappointment that we have not been able to achieve a certain number of changes that would improve it somewhat. I suspect that I am not alone in feeling somewhat frustrated by the procedures that we are following at this time. I do not think that the House of Commons is ever particularly happy when it is playing second fiddle to the other House. That House has worked very hard on this legislation, but it does mean that by the time it gets to us there is almost a sense of having exhausted every opportunity of lobbying the Minister and seeking concessions. Furthermore, taking the procedure on the Floor of the House and taking all stages in a few hours means that there is very little chance of being able to persuade the Minister, by the force of argument or perhaps even the weight of numbers, to make a concession even at a later stage, because the later stages this evening are rather academic.
      Mr. David Harris: Would my hon. Friend note that on the first Division there was a great flurry in the Chamber and the Whips were sent all over London to bring Members back? Does he not take some heart from that?
      Mr. Moate: I do.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) has established an even greater reputation for rebellion and for causing worry on the Government Front Bench. Alas, even then the Government had a majority of about 40 on the amendment while in Standing Committee they might have had a majority of only four. That concentrates Ministers' minds more acutely than this evening's proceedings.
      9.45 pm
      Amendment No. 34 and the amendments that accompany it illustrate my point. I believe that we have a strong case for at least an appeal procedure in the early stages of this new legislation. I suspect that the Minister has only to say no and that will be the end of the matter. We will not be able to squeeze anything out of him and we

      545
      will get no concessions. A vote will result in a substantial Government majority. That is the way of life and what faces us at the moment. However, that is not the best way to carry this legislation through.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will listen carefully to our arguments and bear in mind how many hon. Members have spoken tonight in support of the proposition that here should be some appeal broadly against the imposition of new compulsory pilotage directions, at least in the early years. If a competent harbour authority at some time is unreasonable—and, in the nature of things, local authorities and harbour authorities can be unreasonable—and imposes byelaws which some shipowners consider to be unreasonable, those shipowners will go to the Minister and ask what they can do because the harbour authority is imposing compulsory pilotage on small vessels going to that port and the costs are threatening to put the owner out of business. What can the shipowner do? The shipowner will ask the Minister because he believes that the Minister has given monopoly power to that harbour authority.
      What will the Minister say? He will say, "Well, there is a consultation requirement in the Act." That is all very well, and consultation is very helpful. However, if consultation has taken place and the users claim that the action is unreasonable, yet the harbour authority still introduces the new regulation imposing pilotage direction, the Minister will say, "I am very sorry. Ultimately that port will learn the folly of its ways and business will be lost." However, that is no consolation to the shipowner who in the meantime may have gone out of business or suffered a loss of trade. After all, a shipowner cannot switch from one port to another. He must take the goods where the shipper or geography dictates that they should be taken.
      There is no appeal procedure in such circumstances. I cannot understand why my hon. Friend, representing a Government who believe in competition, is prepared to give a monopoly power to authorities which might not always behave reasonably, without any recourse or right to appeal. New clause 1 contains a sensible and fair arrangement, at least for an interim period. I am very disappointed that we have seen no sign that the Minister is prepared to give any ground on that.
      We want clear responsibility transferred to the harbour authorities and we want it to be taken out of the area of governmental decision. I agree with those aims. However, we are now moving into a new era. We have conceded temporary arbitration procedures for pilots. Is it not reasonable that we should provide temporary transitional arbitration or appeal procedures for shippers or shipowners entering those ports? I would have thought that that was eminently reasonable. However, we have had no sign of any concessions. I am very disappointed about that.
      I do not think that there is an awareness by my hon. Friend—and I am sure that this is unintentional on his part — of the battles that many of those shipping companies have had to endure to survive. The sheer burden of costs makes it exceedingly difficult for many shipping companies to survive, especially those operating the smaller coastal vessels. Those companies have used tremendous initiative and cost-cutting techniques to remain in business. If an unreasonable port authority
      546
      imposed pilotage requirements on smaller vessels, some of those shipping companies could be put out of business at a time when we are all desperate for our Merchant Navy to survive and, indeed, expand. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Minister has made any helpful move to assist companies that are worried about the possibilities of having unreasonable burdens imposed on them. I hope that my hon. Friend can reassure me that my fears are misplaced. He should find some way of providing reassurance.
      Mr. James Couchman: Mine will be perhaps the briefest contribution because much of what I want to say has been eloquently expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) who put a reasonable case for the setting up of an appeal procedure. Consultation is one thing: appeal is another. The Bill is not fair and equitable in that respect.
      I talked today with a shipowner who said that perhaps 90 per cent. of the Bill is right, but there is still an unknown quantity. This measure dramatically changes the position of pilotage harbour authorities. There should be an appeal procedure for at least a temporary trial period while the legislation settles down. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to give a concession in the direction of the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).
      Mr. Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) was a little unfair. We have been giving away concessions like confetti. The thrust of the Government amendments is that they have conceded various points raised by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham was particularly punchy in his criticisms of this aspect of the Bill, although I am grateful for the fact that he did so from a basic position of supporting the thrust of the Bill.
      The legislation is by no means lopsided and unfair to the shipowner. We are dealing with one aspect of the Bill — compulsory pilotage — but, when we deal with exemption certificates, it will be argued that we are being far too hard on the pilots because we are introducing arrangements whereby exemption certificates must be issued so that safety and other factors can be guaranteed. Under the compulsory pilotage arrangements, shipowners will also have an appeal procedure which can consider charging, for instance. The Bill is by no means lopsided and unfair, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham described it.
      I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths). The distinction between the consultation required within the harbour area and outside it springs from the fact that within the harbour area the competent harbour authority is already the authority responsible for safety and other navigation factors. We believe that consultation is appropriate. If the competent harbour authority aims to go outside the harbour area in terms of compulsory pilotage, it should be subject to an appeals procedure, and the procedures of the House of Commons, should that become necessary.
      Amendment No. 34 removes the requirement on competent harbour authorities to consult the shipowners who will be directly affected by the arrangements that they make for compulsory pilotage. A harbour authority is

      547
      always required to consult shipowners in the exercise of its other functions in relation to safety of navigation, such as the power to direct the movement of shipping in its harbours. I cannot see any serious case for not requiring the competent harbour authority to consult the shipowners about the introduction of compulsory pilotage.
      The Government believe, however, that the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), and supported by others, goes too far in the other direction. It would apply an arbitration procedure to any dispute that arose between the competent harbour authority and the port users about a pilotage direction introducing compulsory pilotage. The fundamental principle of the Bill is that the final decision is the clear responsibility of the competent harbour authority once it has carried out consultation. There is an argument about that, but the responsibility has to rest somewhere.
      I do not believe there is a case to be made for wider consultation under amendment No. 36. It does not seem sensible to write in a statutory right to consult bodies or groups that lack any knowledge of navigational safety. There is no similar obligation to consult about the exercise of a harbour authority's other functions, and there is no such obligation in the existing legislation on pilotage. For those reasons, I ask that this amendment be withdrawn or rejected.
      Mr. Thornton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 35, in page 7, line 41, leave out `vessels' and insert `ships'.—[Mr. Michael Spicer]
      Mr. Thornton: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 7, line 46, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
      `( ) A competent harbour authority shall have jurisdiction for the purpose of pilotage over the area which immediately before the appointed day was a pilotage district which included the area of that authority.
      ( ) A pilotage direction shall not specify an area other than an area which immediately before the appointed day was a pilotage district unless a harbour revision order has been made under section 14 of the Harbours Act 1964 or, in Northern Ireland, a harbour order has been made under section 1 of the Harbours Act (Northern Ireland) 1970, to alter the limit of the area in respect of which the direction is to apply.
      ( ) Schedule (Altered Areas) shall have effect in relation to harbour revision orders under subsection ( ) above.'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 82—schedule—
      'ALTERED AREAS
      1. Where a harbour authority, which proposes on or after the appointed day to direct that pilotage shall be compulsory for ships navigating in an area other than an area in which pilotage is compulsory by virtue of an order under section 9(1)(i) of the Pilotage Act 1983 applies before that day for the making of the harbour revision order—

      (a) paragraphs 3 to 5 of Schedule 3 to the Harbours Act 1964 (procedural requirements for making harbour revision orders) shall not apply;

      (b) before making the order the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as appear to him to be affected by it; and;

      (c) if the draft order extends the limits of the authority's jurisdiction into the area of another harbour authority's jurisdiction and any person consulted by the Secretary of State under paragraph (b) above objects to the making of the order the Secretary of State may modify the order so that the limits of the authority's jurisdiction do not extend into that of the other authority.

      548

      (d) after the making of the order the direction shall apply to the area within the authority's limits of jurisdiction as extended by the order, notwithstanding that the order is not yet in force.'.

      Mr. Thornton: This amendment on the theme of safety in our coastal waters is very important and will ensure that pilotage districts and consultative procedures are complied with. These procedures are outlined in the consequential amendment before schedule 1, Altered Areas. The effect of the Bill as drafted is to limit compulsory pilotage to the areas presently defined as port areas or parts of such areas. In some cases this will mean a contraction of such areas which could leave sensitive and navigationally hazardous parts of our coast and estuaries unguarded, notably the Thames and Mersey estuaries. Pilotage services will not be available where ships first begin to look for them. That has been a major criterion whenever pilotage legislation has been considered. In days gone by this was the most sensible criterion because the lack and fallibility of navigational aids were factors which are not of real relevance today.
      But the criterion is as valid today as it ever was. The size of ships and in particular their draught, which when entering some ports can be 70 feet, nearly 12 fathoms, or more; the nature of some of the cargo carried and the consequences of an incident involving such ships; the manning standards, both in a qualitative and numerical sense; and the increasing commercial pressures that are employed—this could well be a recipe for disaster. The incompetent and the foolhardly—as we see all too often in incidents around our coast — will be tempted, especially in bad weather, when navigation in shallow enclosed waters is at its most difficult and proper or alternative pilotage services will not be available, to navigate their vessels into areas where their skill, experience and local knowledge will be wholly inadequate.
      The Bill makes provision for a competent harbour authority to be able to propose to extend the area in which pilotage should be compulsory outside its harbour limits, providing that it is an area in which pilotage is presently compulsory, and for that to be effected on the appointed day. It will be done by means of a modified harbour revision order procedure, which has to be by order, and the Secretary of State, before refusing, approving or amending same, has to consult such persons as appear to him to be affected by it. All this will take time, because the competent harbour authorities will be taking on new responsibilities which will require a great deal of consideration. Yet the Bill——
      It being Ten o'clock, THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Pilotage Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Neubert.]

      Pilotage Bill [Lords]
      Again considered in Committee.
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Thornton: Yet the Bill in clause 33(3) puts a minimum period of only nine months between the passing

      549
      of the Act and the coming into force of part I which includes the appointed day. I suggest that this is not enough time. According to the Green Paper,
      "Our modern pilotage service is second to none in the skills deployed and the preparedness of pilots to meet and serve the ships using our ports".
      It seems strange that this well proven system is to be more or less destroyed and is to be retained only through a bureaucratic consultative procedure.
      Our amendment is designed to ensure that the present pilotage areas are retained and can be changed only through the modified harbour revision order procedure outlined. This would give proper time for due consideration of the important matters and for the necessary local consultation to take place. I believe that it is absolutely imperative that we do not allow a position to arise whereby existing compulsory pilotage areas can be wiped out by the Bill on the appointed day without consideration. It would be inconceivable if pilotage around our coasts was to be inhibited without proper and adequate consideration. This ties in very much with my earlier remarks about the responsibility of hon. Members and of the Government for seeing that safety of navigation in our waters is paramount. I believe that the amendment would go a long way to ensuring that.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: We dealt with this matter in detail earlier when discussing amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 45 which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale). As I said then, we believe that it would be wrong to take existing pilotage boundaries as a starting point for the new regime.
      The only additional point I should like to make is that the competent harbour authorities are already responsible for other safety matters in their ports. It is logical and proper that they be trusted to impose a safe pilotage regime. Of course, the Bill provides a means by which a competent harbour authority can readily provide services beyond its existing harbour limits if that is necessary. That should meet the worries about hazards to navigation beyond those limits that my hon. Friend has raised.
      For that reason and the reason I gave earlier, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
      Mr. Thornton: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said on this and the earlier amendments.
      For the reasons which we expressed in the first debate, I feel that nothing in the Bill, nothing as presently drafted and nothing that the Minister has said convinces me that we are not entering troubled waters with regard to pilotage areas.
      I will therefore press the amendment to a Division.
      Amendment negatived.
      Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 8

      PILOTAGE EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES
      Mr. Thornton: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 8, line 11, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 39 and amendment No. 40, in page 8, line 42, at end insert—
      550
      '(4A) A competent harbour authority may, on granting a pilotage exemption certificate, restrict the use of that certificate, having regard to the carriage by ship or specific goods or substances which are reasonably believed to be dangerous or harmful.'.
      Mr. Thornton: This amendment refers to exemption certificates. I should say at the outset that the proposed change—the word "shall" to "may"—is anything but a semantic change. It is a change of considerable importance. It is a change which is in the interests of the competent harbour authorities.
      As the clause is written, the competent harbour authority will not be able to refuse the issue of a pilotage exemption certificate, for whatever reason, provided it is satisfied as to an applicant's skill, experience and local knowledge and, where it appears necessary that the applicant's knowledge of English is sufficient. It will not be able to exercise any discretion, no matter what the circumstances are.
      One of the effects of the amendment will be to expose our coastal and short-sea ships to some of the influences that have already decimated our deep-sea merchant fleet and put British officers' jobs at risk on, for example, ferries which operate around our shores. It will result in an undoubted reduction in efficiency and safety standards. As far as we are aware, British ships are not afforded similar benefits on the Continent, America or elsewhere in the world. Indeed, they are not in the accepted sense allowed to trade on the coast elsewhere.
      In response to this amendment in the other place the Minister, among other things, said:
      "As to allowing CHAs to have discretion in issuing certificates to vessels carrying dangerous cargoes, I do not agree that a CHA should be allowed to restrict the issue of certificates for such vessels since the cargo has little bearing on the competence of the master to navigate his vessel … To allow them to be witheld on any grounds other than the competence of the master or mate involved means that unnecessary costs have to be borne by shipping … The CHA may apply a direction to all ships or to all ships of a certain description and this will allow a CHA to take into account considerations such as whether a vessel is carrying passengers or hazardous cargoes." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 1987; Vol 484, c.838.]
      I shall deal with those three points in reverse order. First, it is misleading to state, in the context of the issuance of pilotage certificates, that a CHA will be able to take into account considerations such as whether a vessel is carrying passengers or hazardous cargoes. It will not. The use of the word "shall" removes any discretion in the matter.
      Secondly, there are many grounds to be considered other than the competence of the master. For example, in an economic sense, in the smallish ports where there is an ongoing but quite irregular demand for pilotage services, it may be that a certain volume of work is required for pilotage so that it is not prohibitively expensive for the few ships requiring it.
      On practical grounds, there are many ports where the mix of ships is very large, varying from fishing vessels to very large crude carriers, and where the channels are narrow. For a port to operate efficiently, ideally ships must not be delayed. Large vessels need so much room to manouevre and are so slow to respond to initiated actions that it is frequently beyond the comprehension of small ship masters. To have to issue pilotage exemption certificates under such circumstances may marginally reduce the cost for the small ships, but will reduce the overall efficiency of the port and possibly increase the

      551
      costs for the large ship. That is so because in this case there would he no alternative for the harbourmaster but to use his negative powers and to stop either the large ship from moving or several smaller ones. That is already happening in some ports where ships are exempted through size, or whatever, from the requirement to take pilots.
      Thirdly, it may very well be that the cargo has little bearing on the competence of the master to handle his vessel. However, because handling one's vessel competently and efficiently in the confines of a port requires full knowledge of the handling characteristics of all the vessels as they interact with each other, when the consequences of an incident on life in the urban areas and the environment are high, the modest cost of a belt and braces attitude is a must. Recent tragedies have demonstrated how familiarity in the marine environment can end in disaster.
      Mr. Roderick Macleod, the chairman of Lloyd's Register of Shipping, said recently:
      "Even if absolute safety were achievable it could not be assumed that the commercial world would be able or willing to accept the cost of achieving it."
      On some ships, masters may serve continuously for six months or even a year without enough officers. They may work 12 hours to 16 hours a day. That leads to tiredness, and competent harbour authorities should have the ability to exercise discretion to take into consideration the manning levels on the bridges of ships. The clause as drafted will prevent that.
      Ship regimes can and do become very insular and are rarely if ever the subject of checks. That can quickly lead to bad practices. It is in the interests of the shippers and of the harbour authorities that they should have this authority and discretion, which is denied to them under the Bill. I believe that it is in the interests of everyone connected with pilotage that the amendment be accepted.
      10.15 pm
      Dr. Godman: The amendment should commend itself to the Committee. The applicants for an exemption certificate should be subjected to a tough examination. Such applicants must have what has been called a "reasonable grasp" of English, and must possess local knowledge. How are they to acquire that local knowledge?
      The clause contains other worrying features. The honorary secretary of the Scottish Guild of Pilots wrote to me to express his concern, and that of his colleagues, about the clause. He said:
      "Ship manning continues to be reduced in both numbers and, in some instances, standards, and yet new proposed legislation makes it incumbent upon CHAS to grant exemption certificates to bona fide masters and first mates of any nationality of any ship of any flag provided such persons comply with standards which must not be unduly onerous."
      I believe that those standards should be tough and onerous before a certificate is granted to an applicant. Mr. Harrigan continues:
      "Many masters and first mates have, on arrival in pilotage areas, been on duty for many hours often in adverse weather and are tired and stressed and should not be required to undertake pilotage duties."
      That underlines what was said by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton).
      When there is a dangerous cargo and a competent harbour authority has no real control over the working conditions of masters and mates of vessels—foreign or domestic — the authority should have the discretion to introduce tough standards by which to assess applicants,
      552
      and the discretion to refuse applicants a certificate when they do not come up to those — rightly tough — standards.
      Mr. Wallace: I wish to speak to amendment No. 40, which stands in my name. It echoes the words of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), to the extent that it seeks to substitute the word "may" for "shall", which will allow the competent harbour authorities to take account of some of the dangerous substances that may come into their harbours. That would be welcome, and amendment No. 40 was designed specifically with that purpose in mind. It is clear that in many areas in which exemptions might be allowed there are hazardous substances, such as nuclear waste, oil products and gaseous products, all of which, if something goes wrong, are hazardous to the surrounding community. It is only right that, if a harbour authority is granting an exemption certificate, it should be able to exclude its use in circumstances where the master or mate is in control of a ship which is carrying such substances. It is an important consideration and I hope, somewhat forlornly, that the Minister might be able to respond to it positively.
      Government amendment No. 39 is designed to meet the circumstances which were put to the Minister by the Orkney Islands council. Under subsection (3) it should be possible, when a direction is made, for an exemption certificate to be issed to particular ships in particular areas. Having anticipated the nature of the amendment, I wish to express my appreciation of it.
      Mr. Stott: I said on Second Reading that clause 8 and the exemption certificates caused my right hon. and hon. Friends and I some difficulty. As the clause is constructed, it is unacceptable. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) and I agree with every word that he uttered about the certificates.
      In the form in which the Bill was first drafted, before it went to another place, some or the exemption provisions were even more slackly drawn than they are now. It is perhaps a reflection of my inability to get a grip on the Bill in the short time that I have had available to me that I have been unable to table amendments to the exemption provisions.
      Those of us who have been in this place for a reasonable period will recognise readily that "may" and "shall" amendments often produce filibustering, or at least prolonged debate, but I shall not use that tactic this evening. In this instance I believe that we are right in what we are doing.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: What are we doing?
      Mr. Stott: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the hon. Member for Crosby, he would know exactly what we are doing. He has only recently entered the Chamber and now he asks what we are doing. Some of us have been in the Chamber since 6.15 pm discussing many important issues. I think that the hon. Gentleman should be a little less forthright in his sedentary interjections.
      We are discussing whether a competent harbour authority may, on the flimsiest of excuses, grant pilotage exemption certificates. Do we know what we are talking about when we talk about the granting of pilotage exemption certificates? The reality is that masters or mates will be able to bring ships into any harbour or port in the

      553
      United Kingdom, provided that they satisfy some spurious exemption provisions that are encapsulated in the Bill. I do not consider that to be a sound principle.
      In case the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) does not know, I happen to have had some experience of these matters. For many years I was a quartermaster to pilots as the ships on which I served entered and left the United Kingdom. I was also a quartermaster on ships as they entered and left foreign ports. For a fairly long period I served on a ship that sailed from Liverpool to Montreal. The St. Lawrence river is certainly longer than any river in Britain. There are four pilots on the St. Lawrence river going from the top all the way down to Montreal, and there are pilots who go further down the St. Lawrence seaway and into the great lakes.
      When I kept watch on that river—no matter how many times I went down the same stretch—the pilotage, the directions and the orders from the pilots were different on every occasion, because different activities were taking place on the river; dredging, silting, and so on. The circumstances are constantly changing. Nothing is ever the same on any two occasions. No matter how many times —as a master, a mate or a helmsman—a sailor enters or leaves the harbour, weather and other conditions are always different. It is therefore essential that someone aboard the ship is conversant with the differences obtaining at any given time, and I believe that person should be a qualified pilot.
      As I said on Second Reading, I do not wish to put any obstruction in the way of those who already have exemption certificates. Of course, some people, such as ferry operators who go in and out of harbours every day of the week, should not be inhibited. That regime would continue under the amendment. However, it seems to me — and a qualified pilot would agree — that the Committee should avoid opening it up to any flag and any person.
      If there is no pilot, the shipowners or the port operators may save some money. I assure the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) that I am concerned about shipping costs and about the deterioration of the British merchant fleet. But if we really want to save money, we need not do it by introducing this measure. We could save port authorities and shipowners some money by persuading the Government to do away with light dues, which cost the ports and shipping the massive levy of £48 million. Light dues could be paid for through the central Exchequer. It is clear that the Exchequer has a considerable amount to spend, because the Chancellor gave away £3 million in the Budget a couple of weeks ago.
      This is a serious matter. As I have said this evening and on Second Reading, responsible masters and first mates could easily be given exemption certificates to bring ships into United Kingdom ports. Others, however, should not have the exemption as the Bill describes it.
      The tragedy of the Herald of Free Enterprise is on all our minds. In my capacity as the official Opposition spokesman for maritime affairs, I received an unsolicited letter from the wife of the serving master of one of those ferries—not the Herald of Free Enterprise. The letter set out in detail the number of hours that that lady's husband worked when he was on duty. The hours are long and arduous, and in some circumstances could prove dangerous. We may return to that subject if we debate
      554
      another merchant shipping Bill. If that is happening to a British master operating one of our ferries on the Continent, the same conditions could apply to others on ro-ro ships operating between the United Kingdom and the Continent or the Mediterranean.
      I know about the hours, because I worked them. Seamen, masters and mates performing their duties between one port and another can go for literally 24 hours without sleep. Are we going to give exemption certificates to masters who are working under such strenuous conditions when entering and leaving United Kingdom ports? We should not do that. The word "may" should be changed to "shall", because that would strengthen the Bill.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Michael Spicer: I agree with the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) that much of the Second Reading debate focused on pilotage exemption certificates. Therefore, the Committee knows that the Government do not accept that the proposal involves any risk to safety.
      A competent harbour authority has to satisfy itself that the master's skill, experience and, above all, local knowledge are sufficient to enable him to pilot the ship within the authority's harbour. The master must be capable of bringing in the ship as safely as a local pilot. If the competent harbour authority is not satisfied that he can safely do so, it will not issue a certificate. I emphasise that local knowledge is one of the points about which a competent harbour authority is required to satisfy itself. A master will therefore have to visit a port sufficiently regularly to obtain that knowledge before he will be given a certificate.
      Clause 8(5) provides:
      "A pilotage exemption certificate shall not remain in force for more than one year".
      Therefore, a master has to meet those stringent requirements at least every year.
      It has been suggested that foreign masters should be required to take on pilots as a substitute for reserving cabotage. The hon. Member for Wigan stressed that point on Second Reading. However, that would be an ineffective way of discriminating to protect cabotage. One certain consequence is that it would raise the cost of trading in and out of our ports.
      Mr. Stott: That is nonsense.
      Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman says that that is nonsense, but he did not deny on Second Reading that certain costs would be involved. It is a question whether he thinks that the costs connected with that part of the argument would help to reserve cabotage.
      Amendment No. 40 proposes that the use of certificates should be restricted if a ship is carrying dangerous goods. We believe that only in very exceptional circumstances can it be argued that a ship needs both a master who is totally familiar with the port and a local pilot. Cases of that kind are covered by subsection (3), which gives the Secretary of State power to relieve a competent harbour authority of the normal obligation to issue a certificate in exceptional circumstances. Apart from those circumstances, we believe that, if unnecessary port costs are to be avoided, there must be a general obligation on the competent harbour authorities to issue pilotage exemption certificates to masters who meet the requirements that they set for their ports.
      Dr. Godman: Subsection (1)(b) refers to a sufficient knowledge of English. Would applicants be given both an oral and a written examination?
      Mr. Spicer: That would he up to the competent harbour authorities. Their views about testing differ, but in order to meet the statutory requirements they have to satisfy themselves that knowledge of the English language is adequate. How they should test is left to their discretion. I visited Harwich recently, and my impression was that the criteria will be much more strictly examined than they have been in the past.
      Mr. Wallace: Rather than accept amendment No. 40, the Minister said that clause 8(3) allowed the Secretary of State to give directions that excluded the use of exemption certificates. However, my understanding of clause 8(3) is that it relates to unusual navigational hazards rather than to substances carried by vessels. Is that an unreasonable distinction to make?
      Mr. Spicer: Clause 8(33) also deals with dangerous substances. No doubt we shall discuss clause 8(3) in detail shortly. However, I stress that matters are covered both in terms of hazards and dangerous substances.
      Government amendment No. 39 makes it clear that, where the Secretary of State issues a direction to cover unusual hazards in the harbour, the competent harbour authority will still be able to issue certificates if it is satisfied about the master's capability. However, it will not be obliged to do so.
      I ask the Committee to reject amendments Nos. 38 and 40 and to approve Government amendment No. 39.
      Mr. Thornton: I should like to press the amendment to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 79.

      Division No. 145]

      [10.35 pm

      AYES

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Haynes, Frank

      Stott, Roger

      Howells, Geraint

      Wallace, James

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Nellist, David

      Mr. Malcolm Thornton and Dr. Norman A. Godman.

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Ancram, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Arnold, Tom

      Favell, Anthony

      Ashby, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Forth, Eric

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Freeman, Roger

      Baldry, Tony

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Batiste, Spencer

      Gregory, Conal

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Ground, Patrick

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Brinton, Tim

      Harris, David

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

      Burt, Alistair

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Hind, Kenneth

      Cash, William

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cope, John

      Jackson, Robert

      Couchman, James

      Jessel, Toby

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jones, Robert (Herts W)

      Durant, Tony

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      556

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stern, Michael

      Malone, Gerald

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Marlow, Antony

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Moate, Roger

      Tracey, Richard

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Neubert, Michael

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Norris, Steven

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Wheeler, John

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wolfson, Mark

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Yeo, Tim

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Ryder, Richard

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Michael Portillo.

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Spencer, Derek

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 39, in page 8, line 34, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      '(3) If the Secretary of State is satisfied, on application by a competent harbour authority, that it is appropriate to do so by reason of the unusual hazards involved in shipping movements within its harbour, he may direct that during such period (not exceeding three years) as he may specify, not withstanding that the authority is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) above, it may refuse to grant pilotage exemption certificates under that subsection.'. — [Mr. Michael Spicer.]
      Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      10.45 pm

    Clause 10

      PILOTAGE CHARGES
      Amendment propose: No. 41, in page 9, line 31, at end insert
      `or the ship does not arrive or depart at the notified time,. —[Mr. Michael Spicer.]
      The Chairman: With this., it will be convenient to consider amendments Nos. 42 and 44.
      Mr. Wallace: I wish to speak briefly to amendment No. 42, which seeks to leave out clause 10(3). It is essentially a probing amendment to find out why a vessel which comes into port without a pilot, but under the control of a master or mate who has an exemption certificate, would be charged. Clause 8, which deals with the granting of exemption certificates provides for the covering of the proper administrative charge, which goes with the application of such an exemption certificate. Therefore, it does not seem right that if no use is made of the pilot services, there should nevertheless, be a charge.
      I can understand that an argument may be made that there will be occasions, possible in exceptionally bad weather, when vessels which have a master with an exemption certificate may wish to make use of pilot services. Of course, that service must be available throughout the year and around the clock. However, it appears that there are two categories of users—regular users and occasional users. The occasional users are likely to be in need of pilot services as often as the regular user who has an exemption certificate and who would require it on exceptional occasions. The occasional user has to pay only when he has to make use of the pilot services.

      557
      Likewise, why should that not also be the case for the master or mate with an exemption certificate? An explanation for the charge is required.
      Mr. Peter Griffths: I too should like to query the effect of subsection (3) and, to that extent, I wish to speak in support of amendment No. 42.
      I understand that in other transport matters the Government have sought to root out cross-subsidisation. It is said that those who use the service should bear the cost of it. If there is a social reason why they cannot meet that cost, it should be met from other public funds, and not by other transport users. The effect of clause 10(3) is that a ship with a competent pilot on board, whether the captain or the mate who holds an exemption certificate, shall still be subject to a charge. That is a form of cross-subsidisation which I would have thought was anathema to the Government. For that reason, I find it difficult to understand why my hon. Friend the Minister is not leaping to his feet to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: There are two schools of thought on this and we do not have a dogmatic view. First, there is the cost of issuing exemption certificates regularly and, secondly, such ships benefit from the improvement in safety which a well-run pilotage service means for the ports. Therefore, on balance we believe that they should share the cost.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 12

      INFORMATION AND DIRECTIONS AS TO JOINT ARRANGEMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 46, in page 11, line 12, after `authority', insert—
      `(cc) there is any person who carries on harbour operations in a harbour (within the meaning of the Harbours Act 1964) which is not the harbour of a competent harbour authority and access to which is customarily available through the harbour of a competent harbour authority; or'.
      No. 47, in page 11, line 19, after '(c)' insert `, (cc)'. — [Mr. Michael Spicer.]
      Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 13

      RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES BETWEEN AUTHORITIES
      Amendments made: No. 48, in page 11, line 49, after '(c)', insert `, (cc).'
      No. 49, in page 12, line 1, leave out 'in question' and insert
      'of the competent harbour authority'.— [Mr. Michael Spicer.]
      Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 14 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 17

      RIGHT OF AUTHORISED PILOT TO SUPERSEDE UNAUTHORISED PILOT
      Sir Julian Ridsdale: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 14, line 14, leave out 'a ship or'.
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 52, in page 14, line 16, leave out 'a ship or'.
      No. 53, in page 14, line 21, at end insert
      'and the authority, in determining whether or not to make a direction under paragraph (b) above in respect of ships of any description, shall have regard in particular to their size and the nature of the cargoes they carry or may carry'.
      Sir Julian Ridsdale: These amendments seek to ensure that any direction given by a competent harbour authority with regard to movements within its harbour must take account of the size of the ship to which a direction applies and the nature of its cargo. That will place an obligation on CHAs to give weight to safety consideration when issuing directions which allow an unauthorised pilot to take charge of a vessel when shifting within the port.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: These amendments are unnecessary. The provisions of the Bill already allow for CHAs to make the necessary directions only in respect of some ships if they wish. The term "ship of a specified description" is wide enough to allow them to consider the size of ship and the nature of its cargo. That meets the anxiety behind my hon. Friend's amendment, so we would ask him to withdraw it.
      Sir Julian Ridsdale: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 18 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 24

      ABOLITION OF PILOTAGE AUTHORITIES
      Amendments made, No. 54, in page 18, line 8, leave out `the relevant' and insert 'any'.
      No. 55, in page 18, line 9, after 'authority', insert
      `which in the opinion of the Pilotage Commission have been used, have accrued or, as the case may be, have been incurred exclusively in connection with its pilotage functions'.
      No. 56, in page 18, line 13, leave out from 'vesting' to 'in' in line 14.
      No. 57, in page 18, line 16, leave out from 'itself' to end of line 18 and insert
      'of any property rights and liabilities of the pilotage authority which, in the opinion of the Commission, have been used, have accrued or, as the case may be, have been incurred exclusively in connection with the authority's pilotage functions;
      (b) make may similar provisions as to any such property rights and liabilities which, in the opinion of the Commission have been used, have accrued or, as the case may be, have been incurred substantially but not exclusively in connection with those functions; and'
      No. 58, in page 18, line 22, leave out 'relates to service' and insert
      'calculated by reference to remuneration paid and service given'.
      No. 59, in page 18, line 23, at end insert 'or guaranteed'.
      No. 60, in page 18, line 23, at end insert—

      559
      `( ) Proposals submitted under subsection (2) above may include such supplementary and incidental provision in connection with the matters there mentioned as the Pilotage Commission considers appropriate.'.
      No. 61, in page 18, line 28, leave out 'abolished' and insert 'pilotage'.
      No. 62, in page 18, line 37, leave out subsections (7) and (8)
      No. 64, in page 18, line 45, at end insert—
      `( ) Nothing in this section shall require a scheme to make provision for the vesting in a competent harbour authority of any property, rights or liabilities already vested in it in its capacity as a pilotage authority.
      ( ) The Pilotage Commission may require any pilotage authority to furnish it within such time and in such form as the Commission may specify with such information as it considers necessary for the purpose of formulating the proposals to be submitted by it under this section; and any member of the Commission or person appointed by it for the purpose may inspect any books, documents or other records in the possession of the authority relating to any matter in respect of which information is required to be furnished under this subsection.'. —[Mr. Michael Spicer.]
      Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 25

      TRANSFER OF STAFF OF PILOTAGE AUTHORITIES ETC.
      Amendment proposed, No. 66, in page 19, line 37, at beginning insert '(a)'. —(Mr. Michael Spicer.]
      Mr. Wallace: The amendments to clause 25 relate to the transfer of the pilot authorities and make provision for the winding-up of the old pilotage authorities. Clause 25(3) states:
      "Such a scheme may make provision for the payment of compensation to staff of pilotage authorities"
      who find themselves out of work or lose their employment as a result of this legislation.
      Fairly generous provision is made for pilots by way of compensation and pensions for those who find themselves out of work. The position is that there "may" be compensation for the staff of the pilotage authorities. There is not the same compulsion in the winding-up of those authorities to provide those who lose their jobs with suitable compensation, especially those people who are over 50. I want to know whether it is the Government's intention that a more proper provision should be made for the staff of pilotage authorities who find themselves affected.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: Certainly the Pilotage Commission will be able to make schemes that involve the employees as well as the assets.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 67, in page 19, line 41, leave out from beginning to 'all' in line 42 and insert
      '; and

      (b) without prejudice to paragraph (a) above—

      (i)'.

      No. 68, in page 19, line 45, leave out '(b)' and insert '(ii)'
      No. 69, in page 19, line 49, leave out 'Subsections (4) and (5) above are' and insert 'Subsection (4) above is'.
      No. 70, in page 20, line 32, leave out '(5)' and insert `(4)(b)'.
      No. 71, in page 20, line 35, leave out '(5)' and insert `(4)(b)'.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]
      Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 26 and 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 28

      PILOTS' COMPENSATION SCHEMES
      Amendments made, No. 72, in page 21, line 40, after second `to', insert
      'or for the benefit of.
      No. 73, in page 21, line 44, at end insert
      'but were not then employed under a contract of employment by the pilotage authority for that district or any committee appointed by the authority under section 9(1)(e) of the Pilotage Act 1983'.
      No. 74, in page 21, line 45, leave out 'made with' and insert 'offered to'.
      No. 77, in page 22, line 13, leave out 'made with' and insert 'offered to'. —[Mr. Michael Spicer.]
      Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 29 to 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Schedule 1

    TRANSITIONAL AND SAVING PROVISIONS
    Amendments made, No. 78, in page 26, line 8, at end insert
    'and any order made under section 1(3) or (4) of this Act by virtue of the said section 13'.
    No. 79, in page 26, line 9, at end insert
    `and the area which shall be taken to be its harbour shall be determined accordingly'.
    No. 80, in page 26, line 22, after '(4)', insert '(4A)".
    No. 81, in page 26, line 22, leave out 'that section' and insert
    `section 5 of this Act'. —[Mr. Michael Spicer.]
    Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
    Schedules 2 and 3 agreed
    Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.
    Order for Third Reading read. — [Prince of Wales's Consent signified]
    10.59 pm
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    There has been a weighty debate on the Bill, especially in the other place, with 22½ hours of debate. The Bill has been amended considerably, the temporary arbitration provision being one that strikes me at the moment. I think all those who have played a tremendous part, including my hon. Friends the Members for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) and for Harwich (Sir. J. Ridsdale), in improving the legislation and making this a good and balanced Bill.
    11 pm
    Mr. Stott: The Minister said that the Bill had had a great deal of scrutiny. It certainly did in the other place, but I am not sure whether it has had adequate scrutiny in this House. On my hon. Friends' behalf, I have to register our disappointment that we were not able to consider the Bill in greater detail upstairs in Committee; instead, it has been debated on the Floor of the House on the day before the Easter recess. I am not sure that we have fashioned a better Bill out of Committee, but, in principle, this measure is worth supporting, and I certainly do not wish to impede its progress any further. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for his sterling support throughout the debates.
    11.1 pm
    Mr. Thornton: I join the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) in saying that the Bill has had a fair run this evening,

    561
    but the debates have shown the need for great scrutiny of its detailed and complicated provisions. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that the Bill would have been better had we been able to consider it in greater detail upstairs in Committee, but it is a better Bill than when it started its passage through the other place. The debate has been important because I have been able to put on record some of my misgivings about the Bill's possible consequences.
    The changes, as far as they have gone, have been welcome. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and his colleagues for their co-operation with me in getting the amendments accepted, and to my pilotage colleagues. It is not all gloom. It is a very much better Bill than when it started its passage. That is due in no small measure to that co-operation and to my hon. Friend's willingness to listen to our points.
    However, my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will need to watch the legislation carefully. We have heard a great deal from Ministers about assurances—about the fair and equitable treatment of pilots and about safety around our coasts — but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We must ensure that the intention of the legislation is carried through. For the first time in pilotage legislation, Parliament has handed over the responsibility for pilotage almost totally to other people. We shall not have future opportunities to consider some of the most important matters that affect our coastal waters.
    As I said on Second Reading, the Bill has had qualified support from pilots. Pilotage reorganisation was long overdue, and that was recognised. We believe that this reorganisation is rather like the curate's egg—good in
    562
    parts. I say unequivocally that pilots will try to make the legislation work, but in no sense will any of the commitment that they have shown in the past be diminished by this legislation. They will continue to offer the quality of service and dedication to the shipping industry that have been the hallmarks of pilotage for as long as I have had anything to do with it, and certainly for many hundreds of years before that. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister. I just hope that many of his assurances will come to pass.
    11.4 pm
    Mr. Wallace: I echo what has been said about the speed with which the Bill has been disposed of in this House. Many of us would have liked to give it greater scrutiny. Many of the debates underlined the technical and detailed nature of the Bill. When we were able to go into detail, it was clear how much better it would have been if we could have had more time for scrutiny, perhaps not least of the early retirement and compensation provisions which did not even get a cursory examination.
    The Minister has given the House many assurances and has expressed expectations that the pilots affected by the Bill will be treated fairly and equitably. We hope that those assurances will be well founded in the light of experience and that the Minister's hopes come to pass. What we have achieved in the Bill is an overdue but worthwhile rationalisation of the pilotage service. It is the hope of everyone that the provisions of the Bill work out successfully.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Opencast Mining

    (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Lightbown]
    11.5 pm
    Mrs. Llin Golding: Profit before people — that is what the Government believe in and that is what the Secretary of State believes in when he approves the British Coal planning application for the High Lane opencast site in my constituency. I was brought up in south Wales and saw the devastation to the environment, the total disregard for the living conditions of the workers and the greed for profit of the coal and iron masters. I learnt to despise the Tories for their arrogance and avarice. I watched the workers struggle, through the Labour and trade union movement, to better living and working conditions and to gain for themselves rights to have a say.
    What has happened to those rights? They have become the farce of planning inquiries, where people who have forgotten the struggle of the workers for better living conditions have become the lackeys of the Tory Government in their bid for self-importance. They have become people who think that dirt, dust, noise and a view of industrial coal heaps are good enough for working people, and that opencast mining of 585 acres in the heart of my constituency is "in the public interest".
    Whose public interest? It is not in the public interest of the people of the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme. It is not in the interest of 13,000 people who live within about half a mile of the opencast site. It is not in the interest of several hundred homes within a few hundred feet of the site. It is not in the interest of the people of Knutton, of Chesterton, of Silverdale, of Alsagers Bank, of High Lane and of Scot Hay, whose homes encircle the site. Nor is it in the interest of children, yet unborn, on Parksite estate whose fathers work in Silverdale pit, and who will grow up knowing only a view of a massive industrial void from their living room windows.
    That void was described by the inspector as
    "a significant landscape feature which would endure for a long time".
    It will be significant with a surface area of 44 acres and a depth of 65 yards at its deepest point. Twenty years is a long time to have taken from one a pleasant view of green fields and hedges and to know only industrial waste.
    These roads and villages already suffer from heavy lorries, noise, dust and industrial workings, of which my constituency has more than its fair share. Silverdale deep mine and Holditch deep mine, which has a dirt mound, both give noise and dust problems. There are two private licensed mines. There is marl extraction at Cemetery road, at Knutton lane and at Bradwell wood. The Bates wood opencast site covers 370 acres. The Red street opencast site of 132 acres dominates the miners' estate at Chesterton, with workings right up to the garden fences of many houses. That is an estate already suffering from the resultant problem of the sale of houses by British Coal, with structural problems and with landlord problems, and it is further devastated by the discovery that some of the houses have been built on red ash.
    The Government encouraged people to buy their own homes. Even the inspector recognised that the people
    564
    would have some difficulty and suffer financially if they wished to sell their homes. It is hard luck if people try to do what the Government say—get on their bikes to find a job. Who would buy a house when they read in the inspector's report:
    "Top soil stripping and construction of baffle mounds, will be exempt from noise limitations, and would entail a considerable noise nuisance and represent an undesirable erosion of the quality of the residential environment."?
    Who would buy a house in Black Bank road or the Cheviot close area? They will be only 33 ft and 25 ft away from 200,000 cu m of overburdened mound reaching to a height of 98 ft.
    However, help is at hand. The inquiry proposed a baffle mound at the Cheviot close area to help with the noise problem. Even so, the inquiry accepts that it will not be of much help. In any case, it will involve a visual intrusion problem. If that is not enough, there will be a dust problem. The prevailing westerly winds will most seriously affect the Cheviot close area. In case the Minister thinks that that is just a row of houses, I should say that it is not. It is a large estate of houses which knits in closely with the village of Knutton which is an area of Newcastle-under-Lyme.
    The other area most seriously affected will be Loomer road, east of the over-burdened mounds. That is on the road on which the site traffic will be travelling. It has about 800 houses along its length.
    There was no dispute at the inquiry that the dust could be controlled because of the elevation of the site and the prevailing winds. There was no dispute that noise levels would increase substantially or that blasting would be found unpleasant. However, let us not forget the lorries. The site access at Loomer road will have an estimated extra 98 vehicles a day — 196 movements — for eight years. The people of Loomer road already have an industrial estate along one side of the road. There will be coal haulage lorries at the rate of 120 lorries a day—240 movements a day—with access on to the A34, the main road through Newcastle-under-Lyme. Thank goodness we have half-day working on a Saturday.
    What about the loss of amenities? It was agreed at the inquiry that only 54 acres of the main site could be considered as derelict and in need of treatment. As for the rest of the area, part of the conservation area of woodland at Watermills wood would be lost. The Great Row nature reserve would suffer from the proximity of the intensive operational area. All but seven hectares of the natural revegetated or "wild" areas would be lost and the wildlife driven out. There is a rich and varied animal life. There are 20 species of butterfly, nine species of dragonfly, and a variety of birds, including the relatively rare stonechat and grasshopper warbler. There are mammals, including badgers, and bats, as well as adders and lizards. They will all be driven out in this opencast madness. Twenty seven rights of way will be lost, as will 47 acres of public open space, 68 acres of woodland and miles of hedgerow. The amenity pool at Knutton will be lost and thousands of children living in the area will lose the use of the land for recreation.
    In reply to my question in the House on 1 April, the Minister, with his supposed care for the countryside, said that it was a case of
    "NIMBY—not in my back yard."—[Official Report, 1 April 1987; Vol. 113, c. 1094.]
    I challenge the Minister to accept such devastation in his back yard or even in his front garden as it will be for

    565
    many of my constituents. All of that for 100 jobs in eight years, and many of those not new jobs. Would his constituents, or he, say that the cost of such devastation was too high a price to pay?
    I shall deal with the need for opencast coal. A lot of nonsense has been talked about this opencast site being needed to mix in order to lower the chlorine content of the coal for the power stations. The inspector accepted that there were various other options to meet the demand of the Central Electricity Generating Board for low chlorine coal. Those options were not seriously disputed by British Coal. Indeed, given that the average chlorine content for deep mined coal in the United Kingdom is 0·28 per cent., and that suitable deep mined coal is being mined in nearby Warwickshire, there are other options.
    In addition, national stocks of coal at pitheads have risen to 12 million tonnes in the last 12 months. Failure to use those stockpiles could result in further colliery closures, which is what this Government are truly aiming at.
    Even the inspector, in granting permission, said:
    "The argument on need has in my opinion been overstated."
    He considered that it was perhaps based on the Government's policy for the cheaper open cast coal, but he was at a loss to know whether the policy implied an expansion, nationally or locally, of the historic levels of opencast production. The inspector drew the conclusion that there was an abandonment of a national target and a reliance on market forces. A typical Tory policy: greed, not need.
    Despite the devastation that this opencast mining would cause, the Secretary of State agreed on 31 March that it should go ahead. That should be contrasted with the Minister's words on 23 February on the Streets Lane site also in Staffordshire, when he reduced the size of that site from 520 acres to 395 acres. He said:
    "The Secretary of State takes the view that the case presents the need to strike a difficult balance between the need for the coal, and protection of the local community and its amenities."
    In reducing the size of the site, he considered
    "that this would distance the dwellings in Upper Norwood village, and at the end of Cheslyn Hay from the noise and dust associated with this development—as it would from the `smallholding', and it would obviate the need for Upper Ladywood lane to be diverted. It would also lessen the nuisance associated with the construction of over-burden mounds. In these particular circumstances, the Secretary of State regards these advantages as compelling and as outweighing the loss of coal necessitated by the reduced area of extraction."
    What a contrast that presents to the Secretary of State's views on the Highlane opencast site, with its over-burden mound standing 98 ft high and covering 74 acres, with the 16 ft high boundary baffle mounds, with its destruction of a hamlet of eight houses, and its diverting of Black Bank road. What happened to his concern for the environment and for the people between 23 February and 31 March? The answer is: nothing happened. The only difference is that Newcastle-under-Lyme has a Labour Member of Parliament, and the Streets Lane site has a Tory Member of Parliament.
    The Government have no real concern for people; they do not listen to what they have to say; and they have no
    566
    real concern for the environment. This was a matter of buying votes. When it is a case of buying Tory votes then it is different.
    In the case of the loyal and ancient borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme with its 800-year-old charter, this Government put profit before people. As the Secretary of State is too ashamed to appear himself, can the Minister tell me—can the Minister tell the House—when the rape of my constituency by this Tory Government will cease?
    11.19 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Richard Tracey): The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) made a powerful but rather prickly speech, but I congratulate her on the speed with which she has managed to raise this matter in the House. The decision on the High lane site was issued on 31 March, and, as the hon. Lady said, she raised the matter with my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, Countryside and Planning at Question Time on 1 April, and now we are having an Adjournment debate upon it—all in the space of 10 days.
    I am sure that the House will appreciate that I am unable to comment on the merits of a particular planning decision. Once a decision has been given on an appeal or called-in application, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no further jurisdiction in the matter, and he cannot reopen it to consider any further representations or complaints that he may receive. Any person who is aggrieved by a decision on appeal and wishes to question the validity of the decision may make an application to the High Court within six weeks from the date of the decision. The decision on the High lane site was made only 10 days ago, so it would be doubly inappropriate for me to make any comment on the merits.
    However, as we have heard, the hon. Lady is concerned primarily with opencast coal sites in her constituency and the effect that they have. I hope that in the time that is available to me I can offer some general reassurance.
    There are two British Coal opencast sites currently in operation in the hon. Lady's constituency. Both of them were authorised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy under the Opencast Coal Act 1958. Red street was authorised in July 1981 and Bateswood North in June 1982. Both sites are nearing the end of their productive life. I understand that Red street is expected to finish coaling soon and that Bateswood North is expected to finish in about 1990. Once operations are completed, the land will be restored by British Coal under the terms of its authorisations.
    I can appreciate, however, the hon. Lady's concern. I think that we all accept that opencast coal mining is an intrusive operation. It can cause considerable environmental damage while it is being carried out and consequently it arouses a good deal of local controversy. But opencasting produces a cheap and profitable good quality fuel, which is important to the nation's economy and the financial viability of the British Coal Corporation. It is crucial, therefore, that we should seek to strike the right balance between the nation's interest in exploiting this mineral resource and that of protecting our environment.
    It may help to demonstrate how we are seeking to achieve this if I explain the policy background against which individual decisions are taken on their merits. As I have said, prior to 1 April 1984, British Coal did not apply

    567
    for planning permission for proposals to work coal by opencast methods. Instead it applied to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy for authorisation under section 1 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958. When granting authorisation, my right hon. Friend also gave deemed planning permission for the development under section 2 of the 1958 Act.
    The Commission on Energy and the Environment in its report entitled "Coal and the Environment" in May 1983 recognised that consideration of opencast proposals should properly rest with mineral planning authorities in the same way as any other development proposals. The Government accepted this in their White Paper of the same name. We therefore introduced transitional arrangements on 1 March 1984 by the Department of the Environment circular 3/84, under which, instead of applying to the Secretary of State for Energy for authorisation, British Coal applies for planning permission to the appropriate mineral planning authority.
    However, while the relevant provisions of the 1958 Act remain on the statute book, British Coal still requires authorisation from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, to whom responsibility for giving authorisation was administratively transferred. This now superfluous administrative operation will be removed on the commencement of part V of the Housing and Planning Act 1986. British Coal's opencast operations will then be brought fully within the ambit of the land use planning system.
    The Commission on Energy and the Environment also recommended that the level of opencast production should be allowed to decline as new and more profitable deep mines were brought on stream, and recommended the adoption of a series of guidelines that would confine opencast extraction to sites where coal would otherwise be sterilised by built development; where the site could be environmentally improved by coaling and subsequent restoration, or where other environmental benefits could be obtained; where there was a demonstrable need for a certain grade of coal for blending, or specialised needs that could not be met by deep mines; or to supply demonstrable short-term increases on demand which deep mine production was too inflexible to satisfy.
    However, the commission recognised the need to take account of the overall economic benefit to the nation of opencast production. DOE circular 3/84 therefore advised that each project should be considered in terms of the market requirement for its planned output—taking into account the alternative sources of supply, including deep-mine coal—as well as the environmental, agricultural and other planning considerations. It suggested that proposals should be examined against the following considerations, in no particular order of significance: first, the extent to which the coal would otherwise be sterilised by built development; secondly, the extent to which the site could be environmentally improved in the longer term by coal extraction and subsequent restoration; thirdly, the extent to which the proposal would facilitate the comprehensive working of the coal deposits of an area in an efficient and environmentally satisfactory manner; and, finally, the extent to which the extraction of coal from a site would facilitate the efficient and economic working of other mineral deposits on that site.
    In practice, there has been considerable difficulty in interpreting what constitutes "market requirement" for an individual site in relation to an internationally traded
    568
    commodity. That, in part, has led to disputes and delays in dealing with planning applications. We are therefore taking the opportunity that will arise on repeal of the redundant authorisation requirements in the Opencast Coal Act 1958 to revise and strengthen the guidelines for opencast coal operations. Yesterday we issued a draft circular for public consultation, which seeks to set a balanced framework against which individual proposals can be examined.
    The draft circular drops the reference to market requirement, and applicants will no longer have to provide a justification for the specific need for the coal. I must stress that it is not a free-for-all; indeed, under our proposals, the crucial test of an opencast coal application will be whether the mineral can be extracted in an environmentally acceptable way. It will be for the industry to decide the level of production that it wishes to aim for, but for mineral planning authorities to determine the acceptability of individual proposals.
    The draft circular sets out the national policy considerations, both economic and environmental, that planning authorities will need to take account of when determining individual applications. Opencast coal can be produced cheaply and profitably, and can make a substantial contribution to British Coal's progress towards break-even and its subsequent progress towards self-financing and a satisfactory rate of return on capital. However, the draft emphasises that, whilst recognising the importance of opencast coal, the Government are firmly committed to the protection of the environment; and that environmental controls are therefore vital to the acceptability of opencast working, and must be adhered to if sites are to meet current environmental standards. As for all minerals, proposals for new opencast workings or extensions of existing workings affecting National Parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest and national nature reserves must be subject to the most rigorous examination.
    The draft circular also gives specific advice on the handling of opencast coal proposals. The industry is encouraged to explain fully and as early as possible the nature of its proposals, indicating the ways in which it intends to deal with the environmental factors that will arise. Where large sites or sites that may be worked over many years are proposed, the industry is encouraged to discuss its proposals at an early stage with the local community, by arranging, for example, public meetings and exhibitions. The draft stresses the desirability of using environmental assessment techniques appropriate to the scale of the development and the sensitivity of the area. We also propose to retain the considerations set out in the existing circular.
    We will also emphasise that a positive approach should be taken where opencasting would help clear dereliction or secure the early release of former colliery sites for reclamation. Particular emphasis too is given to the importance of proper restoration and after-care of sites to a subsequent beneficial use and the need for the principles of restoration to be clearly settled at the time planning permission is granted.
    We believe that these proposals taken together strike the right balance between the needs of industry and the economy to develop these important mineral resources and the nation's interest in the protection of the environment. It must be right for industry to make its own

    569
    investment decisions appropriate to its financial objectives, and for mineral planning authorities to determine the acceptability of individual projects through the land use planning system.
    It is a fact of life that minerals can only be worked where they are found, and opencast coal is no exception. The acceptability of opencast coal working will depend in part on the likely environmental impact of the proposals and on the steps to be taken by the developer to minimise those effects. The draft circular makes it clear that the visual intrusions of a site—the effects of dust, noise and vibration from blasting and heavy traffic movements—are all material considerations. These can be reduced by the careful planning of operations, including the siting of boundaries and baffle banks, limiting the height of overburden heaps and moving away from residential areas quickly.
    570
    There will be cases where the environmental effects taken together add up to such a severe diminution in the quality of life for a locality that the development should not proceed.
    We hope that the draft guidelines published yesterday will provide mineral planning authorities with the right framework and advice to help them to solve the conflicting pressures which inevitably arise in considering particular development proposals.
    I recognise that the hon. Lady will be disappointed that I am unable to discuss the merits of particular planning decisions, including the one affecting her constituency. Nevertheless, I hope that what I have said will help to explain the background against which these decisions are taken and our proposals for the way forward. I hope that she will feel reassured that environmental considerations figure large in my right hon. Friend's consideration of matters that come before him.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  PICKUP Initiative
  Mr. Baldry
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money it is estimated that the PICKUP initiative has generated for each polytechnic, technical college and college of further education.

  Mr. Walden
  An enquiry by the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education during the course of a recent exercise designed to finance an increase in PICKUP work revealed that 38 of our polytechnics and major colleges are now turning over more than £100,000 a year from PICKUP training and the five leaders have turnovers in excess of £500,000. The total income for the 38 establishments from PICKUP activity was over £10 million.

  Inner London (Further Education)
  Mr. Dubs
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of pupils aged 16 years and over have remained in full-time education in inner London; and how this compares with the national average.

  Mr. Dunn
  The percentages of 16 and 17-year-olds in full-time education at maintained schools and further education establishments in the academic year 1985–86, in inner London and in England were as follows:

  Academic year 1985–86

  I.L.E.A.

  England

  16-year-olds in full-time education (Percentage of age group)1

  46

  46

  17-year-olds in full-time education (Percentage of age group)1

  27

  30

  1 The number of 16 and 17-year-olds expressed as a percentage of the total number of 15-year-olds in maintained secondary schools one and two years earliert respectively.

  School Activities (Charges)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy on charges for music lessons, field trips, cookery lessons and other similar school activities.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The law on charges for school activities is contained in the 1944 Education Act. Charges for educational "extras" were included in the recent review of local authority fees and charges. The Government has not yet complete consideration of the results of the review, but hopes to have done so fairly soon.

  Geological Surveys (Report)
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has yet received a copy of Sir Clifford Butler's report on geological surveying in the United Kingdom; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Walden
  My right hon. Friend has not yet received the report. It was commissioned jointly by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils and the Natural Environment Research Council. It will be for the chairmen of those bodies, if they wish, to submit the report to my right hon. Friend with whatever advice they may wish to offer.

  Dr. and Mrs. W. G. McLean
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science why he has not answered the letter written to him by constituents of the hon. Member for Birkenhead, Dr. and Mrs. W. G. McLean, 2 Poplar road, Oxton, Birkenhead on 14 December 1986.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A reply has been issued today.

  Universities (Research)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from university authorities about their ability to raise private funds and receive benefactions for research in view of the money available for maintenance of laboratory facilities.

  Mr. Walden
  None.

  Science Budget
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has allocated the additional £15 million for the science budget in 1987–38, which he announced on 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Following receipt of advice from the Chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, I am today informing the bodies concerned of the following additions to their allocations for 1987–88.

  £ million

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  1·5

  Economic and Social Research Council

  0·8

  Medical Research Council

  3·8

  Natural Environment Research Council

  0·8

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  7·5

  British Museum (Natural History)

  0·3

  The Royal Society

  0·3

  In addition I am allocating a further £1·25 million in 1987–88, from within my programme, to the Natural Environment Research Council to reinforce the important and valuable work of the British Antarctic Survey. Supplementary Estimates for all the above expenditure will be presented in due course.

  Teachers (Pay and Conditions)
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the first order under the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act will be laid before Parliament; and when he will issue guidance on the use of the £500 incentive allowance.
  335
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The first order to be made under the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 was laid before Parliament today. It provides for a pay increase for school teachers from 1 January 1987 and for conditions of employment to have effect as terms of teachers' contracts.

  I have today written to the relevant local education authority associations, teacher unions and bodies representing the interests of governors of voluntary schools sending them a copy of the order, a draft circular about the order, and a paper setting out the Government's current thinking about the use of incentive allowances and in particular the £500 allowance.

  Copies of this letter and the attachments are available in the Vote Office.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Guinness plc
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the investigation into Guinness plc to be concluded; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Pattie
  The inspectors are proceeding with their investigation with commendable speed. I cannot say when it will be concluded.

  Torvinstyle Properties Ltd.
  Mr. Michie
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has yet completed his consideration of the report concerning Torvinstyle Properties Ltd., trading as Five Star Developments; what action he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Pattie
  The information obtained concerning Tovinstyle Properties Ltd. is still being considered and I cannot say what action it is proposed to take.

  OECD Countries (Exports)
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has for each of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries as to the value of total exports per capita in United States dollars, including oil, in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is in the following table:

  OECD Exports per Capita 1986

  Country

  United States $

  Canada

  3,415

  USA

  908

  Japan

  1,746

  Australia

  1,431

  New Zealand

  11,699

  Austria

  2,969

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  6,715

  Denmark

  4,149

  Finland

  3,325

  France

  2,162

  F R Germany

  3,973

  Greece

  1458

  Iceland

  13,346

  Ireland

  01,915

  Italy

  1,706

  Netherlands

  5,563

  336

  Country

  United States $

  Norway

  4,397

  Portugal

  1591

  Spain

  703

  Sweden

  13,634

  Switzerland

  5,704

  Turkey

  159

  United Kingdom

  1,867

  Notes:

  1 1985 Exports 1985. Population figures used throughout.

  Source:OECD.

  Industrial Assistance
  Mr. Burt
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies in Bury have obtained regional selective assistance under section 7 of the Industry Act since November 1984; and how much financial assistance in total was offered to them.

  Mr. Giles Shaw
  In the period from 1 November 1984 to 31 March 1987, 13 companies in Bury were offered regional assistance under section 7 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. The total value of these offers was £1,478,000.

  Mr. Burt
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies in Bury have obtained assistance under the business improvement scheme; and how much financial assistance in total was offered to them.

  Mr. Giles Shaw
  Since the business improvement services scheme started in November 1984, offers of assistance have been made to 116 companies in the Bury travel-to-work-Area, to a total value of £956,921.

  Privatisation (Multiple Share Applications)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement as to what proportion of the shares of BT were examined for possible illegality as referred to in the answer of 13 February 1985, Official Report, column 176, to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams).

  Mr. Channon
  All the shareholdings under the United Kingdom offer for sale were so examined. The overseas share issue arrangements were explained in the earlier answer.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement as to the arrangements that were made for the examination of BT share applications for possible illegalities.

  Mr. Channon
  Arrangements were made to deter and detect multiple applications. They led to some 6,600 applications being rejected.

  Dr. McDonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish in the Official Report the number of multiple share applications discovered in the following privatisations: Amersham International, British Gas, Cable and Wireless and Associated British Ports, and the number of prosecutions arising from multiple share applications, together with the penalties involved; and if he will supply the same information in respect of the Trustee Savings Bank flotation.

  Mr. Howard
  I shall reply to the hon. Lady as soon as possible.
  337
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will establish inquiries into the sale of shares in (a) British Aerospace (second tranche), (b) British Airways, (c) British Gas, (d) Britoil (second tranche), (e) Cable and Wireless (third tranche) and (f) the Trustee Savings Bank, with a view to establishing the precise extent of multiple share applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Electronic Communications Infrastructure
  Mr. Nicholls
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how, in the light of recommendation 15 of the Peacock report, the Government expect the electronic communications infrastructure in the United Kingdom to develop; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Pattie
  My right hon. Friend has set up a new steering group to advise on such prospective infrastructure developments. This steering group, which is chaired by Mr. Alstair Macdonald, a deputy secretary in my Department, has as its members Mr. John Alvey, formerly a director of BT plc, Professor Bryan Carsberg, Director General of Telecommunications, Mr. Ivor Cohen, managing director of Mullard Ltd. Mr. John Fairclough, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser and Professor Stanley Metcalfe of Manchester university.

  We have also awarded a major study contract to a firm of consultants to identify ways in which the United Kingdom electronics communications infrastructure may be expected to develop over the next two decades, and the likely effects on suppliers, users and society as a whole. This study is expected to take some eight months to complete.

  My Department has also prepared a discussion document as a basis for wider consultation on these issues. This document is being sent to the major players in the communications industry for comment. This will help to ensure that both the study and the work of the steering group start on a sound footing. Copies of the discussion document have been placed in the Library of the House and will be made available more generally by my Department on request.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary informed the House last November that we would be considering recommendation 15 of the Peacock report in more detail. Both the consultants study and the establishment of the steering group are essential steps in this process.

  Following the study, and in the light of its outcome, the responses to the discussion document and concurrent reviews by the steering group, the Government expect to make public the conclusions they have reached.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the rate of growth in London's gross domestic product during 1985; and what was the last year for which figures are available when a greater rate of growth was recorded.

  Mr. Giles Shaw
  Regional gross domestic product data are available only in current price terms; constant price data are not available. Therefore, the figures quoted make no allowance for inflation.
  338
  Greater London's GDP in 1985 was nearly 12 per cent. higher than in 1984. The last year when a greater rate of growth was recorded was in 1980. For further information see the article "Regional accounts, 1985" Economic Trends November 1986, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Post Office
  Sir Philip Holland
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the profit targets for 1987–88 for the letters, parcels and counters business of the Post Office.

  Mr. Pattie
  The overall profit target for the postal business of the Post Office for 1987–88 is 3·25 per cent. return on turnover, before net interest and tax, on the current cost accounting basis. Profit targets for the three subordinate businesses in 1987–88, calculated on the same basis as the overall target, are 2·8 per cent. for letters, 6·7 per cent. for parcels and 1·2 per cent. for counters.

  National Metrological Co-ordinating Unit (Report)
  Mr. Malins
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to publish the annual report of the National Metrological Co-ordinating Unit, as required by section 60(1) of the Weights and Measures Act 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Giles Shaw
  The report covering the period 1 April 1985 to 31 March 1986 has been published today. I have arranged for copies of the report, which includes the audited statement of accounts, to be placed in the Library.

ENERGY

  Combined Heat and Power Stations
  Mr. Orme
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy with regard to the provision of urban sites suitable for combined heat and power stations.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Provision of sites for CHP stations is a commercial matter for the promoters of CHP schemes.

  Energy Labelling
  Mr. Orme
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any proposals to introduce energy labelling for electrical appliances.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Many manufacturers and retailers already provide energy consumption data for electrical appliances, either in their sales brochures or in the form of "energy labels" on the appliance itself.

  Magnox Reactors
  Mr. Orme
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if it is his intention to publish in full the long-term safety reviews of magnox reactors as soon as they are completed.

  Mr. Goodlad
  All long-term safety reviews of magnox reactors will be assessed by the NII, whose conclusions will be published in due course.

  Mr. Orme
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list, by station, the current status of the long-term safety reviews of magnox reactors currently being carried

  339
  out by the Central Electricity Generating Board and the nuclear installations inspectorate, indicating the date when such reviews commenced, and the estimated dates for completion.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer the Hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) on 3 December 1986, at column 675–76 and on 16 December 1986, at column 477.

  Power Stations (Repairs)
  Mr. Barron
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many major repairs to nuclear power stations have been undertaken since 1983; and at what cost.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I shall ask the chairman of the CEGB to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Barron
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many major repairs to coal-fired power stations have been undertaken since 1983; and at what cost.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I shall ask the chairman of the CEGB and BNFL to write to the hon. Member.

  Concessionary Coal
  Mr. Woodcock
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the average consumption of house coal and smokeless fuel per household in the United Kingdom; and if he will publish details of the supply of concessionary fuel to mineworkers in each National Coal Board area.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 March 1987, c. 649]: Disposals of house coal in the United Kingdom in 1986 were some 8·5 million tonnes, and of smokeless fuels were some 3·2 million tonnes. Of some 21 million households in the United Kingdom, an estimated 4 million use solid fuel in some form, of which about 2·8 million use solid fuel as the main form of heating.

TRANSPORT

  Underground (Escalators)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will call for such a report from the chairman of London Regional Transport as to how many escalators at Underground stations are not in working order, how long in each case they have been out of order, and when they are expected to be returned to working order; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have no plans to call for a report. Responsibility for the efficient day-to-day operation of the Underground lies with London Underground Ltd. which has a substantial repair and maintenance programme underway.

  Road Schemes (Private Involvement)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many road schemes sponsored or supported by his Department have private financial involvement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  On 1 April a Bill to authorise the construction of a new bridge between Dartford and Thurrock was introduced. Subject to parliamentary approval, the bridge will be financed privately, constructed and operated by Dartford River Crossing Ltd. and will cost about £86 million at July 1986 prices.
  340
  There are currently 10 road schemes, with a total cost about £2·5 million, for which the Department are negotiating payment of the cost of the works with private developers.

  The Department has no comparable information for local highway authority schemes supported through transport supplementary grant. This grant is paid towards accepted expenditure by the authorities themselves, net of any private sector contributions.

  Eastern Distribution Road, Stafford
  Mr. Cash
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the proposed eastern distribution road in Stafford; and why the construction of the road has not yet been commenced.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have received several representations supporting an early start to this local authority scheme. It is for Staffordshire county council, as highway authority, to decide what priority it should be given.

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. Hannam
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were in possession of an orange badge at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  800,000 in March 1986 according to information supplied by local authorities.

  A406 (Popes Lane-Western Avenue)
  Mr. Fry
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to announce his decision on the A406 Popes Lane-Western Avenue scheme, for which he received the inspector's report in summer, 1985.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) on Tuesday 7 April 1987, at column. 125.

  A15–B1206 Link
  Mr. Hancock
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he will made a decision on Humberside county council's application to build a new road junction on the A15 road at Bonby Lodge to link with the B1206.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Humberside county council's preliminary report about a new junction at Bonby Lodge was received in February. We have asked for further information in order to make a judgment. We will consider the matter when this information is provided.

  Traffic Commissioners (Bus Deregulation)
  Mr. Hancock
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the work and the effectiveness of the traffic commissioners following bus deregulation in 1986.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The transitional arrangements for registration of bus services under the Transport Act 1985 placed a heavy burden of work on the traffic commissioners and their staff. They are to be congratulated on the way in which they have discharged these duties.

  Financial Management Initiative
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the effect on his Department of the financial management initiative.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My Department's approach to financial management is set out in the annual departmental plan. A copy of the 1986–87 plan is in the Library of the House. The 1987–88 plan will be available shortly.

  Particularly good progress has been made in executive units, which employ some 90 per cent. of the Department's staff. More of them are now individually accountable units with challenging targets for controlling unit costs and improving quality of service. As examples of progress, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre last year achieved its target of turning round 90 per cent. of transactions within 8 days, while reducing the real unit cost of each transaction by 2 per cent.; unit costs in the vehicle inspectorate increased by only half the rate of inflation. Motorway maintenance work has been speeded up by increased use of lane rental contracts, reducing costly delays to motorists and the road haulage industry.

  Road Signs
  Mr. Adley
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to introduce a coach route sign and a coach bus sign in his Department's "Signs Manual".

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Bus and coach signing is being reviewed.

  A range of signs will be authorised on an experimental basis and their effectiveness compared before prescribing such signs for general use. Local authorities can meanwhile apply to the Department for special authorisation of particular signs.

  Ashbourne Bypass
  Mr. McLoughlin
  asked the Secretary for State for Transport what progress is being made with plans for the Ashbourne bypass; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Preliminary investigations by consulting engineers are now well in hand. Traffic surveys are to be carried out this month and in May. These will establish the traffic patterns in and around Ashbourne, and help us plan and test possible routes for a new trunk road. We hope to be able to consult the public on alternatives next year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received about the plans for the Ashbourne bypass in the last six months; and if he will indicate from whom they have come.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In the last six months written representations have not been received.

  Trains (Overcrowding)
  Dr. Marek
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what statistics he has available on passenger train overcrowding.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I receive copies of British Rail's annual survey of the loadings of London commuter trains.

  Roads (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all major road schemes in the Greater London area that have departmental approval to proceed; and what is the cost of each scheme.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I am currently reviewing the national trunk road construction programme and hope to announce conclusions shortly. The current programme of major London schemes is set out in "National Roads England 1985". A copy is in the Library. I have also announced a proposal to safeguard the line of a new western environmental improvement route for London.

  Traffic Management Guidance
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to issue traffic management guidance to the London borough councils under schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Following consultation with the London local authority associations and the police on the draft sent to them last November, and taking account of other comments we have received from some of the wide range of interested organisations who also received copies, we have today issued traffic management guidance to the London borough councils.

  Copies of the circular to London boroughs to which it is annexed are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Well-designed traffic management can contribute positively to economic, social and environmental conditions in London and play an important role in helping communities cope with traffic problems. In particular, we wish to encourage vehicles to make the fullest possible use of London's strategic network of roads in preference to seeking alternative routes through suitable streets and residential areas. Well-managed traffic benefits private and public transport users alike and also helps create better and safer conditions for pedestrians and cyclists.

  The traffic guidance we have now issued will be particularly useful to the London borough councils.

  (a) as a context for preparing annual transport policies and programmes, and

  (b) in formulating proposals affecting the designated road network for which my consent is needed.

  We look forward to continuing to develop with the borough councils new initiatives to tackle London's road and traffic problems.

  Helicopter Search and Rescue Service
  Mr. Maclennan
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he anticipates a search and rescue service helicopter will be located in north-west Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Tenders for provision of a search and rescue helicopter for north-West Scotland have been received and are being evaluated. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Coaches (Speed Limiters)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has begun the consultation process on

  343
  draft regulations to require speed limiters to be fitted to all coaches which are capable of exceeding the motorway speed limit.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A technical standard for speed limiters has now been agreed. Draft regulations based on the standard are being circulated to interested parties today, which set a timetable for all coaches to be fitted with speed limiters calibrated to a maximum speed of 70 mph. The draft regulations would require new coaches to be fitted with a speed limiter from 1 April 1988, those first used on or after 1 April 1984 from 1 April 1989, and older coaches from 1 April 1990. Coaches first used before 1 April 1987 would not be affected by the proposals. Any limiter fitted before the regulations come into effect would not need to comply with all the details of the British Standard, but would have to meet the tamper-proofing and calibration requirements.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will be introducing regulations before the end of this month to make it mandatory to fit seat belts to the front seats of all new large coaches and minibuses.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We expect to make regulations requiring the fitting of seat belts to all exposed seats on new coaches and to the front seats of new minibuses within the next four to six weeks.

  Carriers' Liability (Limits)
  Mr. Gregory
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport which states have not ratified the Montreal protocols to the Warsaw convention to raise carriers' liability limits to 100 SDRs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The following states have ratified Montreal protocol No. 3 to the Warsaw convention, which will raise carriers' liability to 100,000 SRDs: the United Kingdom, Brazil, Portugal, The Netherlands, Colombia and Italy. It is open for other states to ratify if they wish.

  Mr. Gregory
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport which states have entered into special contracts with their passengers to provide for higher limits of liability under the Warsaw convention.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Full details of other states' arrangements for passenger compensation are not available. I understand that most developed countries require their airlines, or at least their national carrier, to take out "special contracts" with their passengers at a level of about 100,000 SDRs. The latest information I have is:

  Country

  Switzerland

  200,000 Swiss francs

  Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Japan

  100,000 SDRs

  Belgium

  90,000 SDRs

  France, Portugal

  80,000 SDRs

  Israel

  80 to 100,000 US dollars

  West Germany

  58,000 US dollars

  Canada

  300,000 Canadian dollars

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. William Casey
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list those occasions on which she met Mr. William Casey, while he was head of the Central Intelligence Agency.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on Monday 6 April at column 21.

  Open Tech
  Mr. Hume
  asked the Prime Minister if she will indicate what financial and planning resources have been put into Open Tech provision (a) in Northern Ireland and (b) in Great Britain over the last five years.

  The Prime Minister
  The Open Tech programme, which ran from October 1982 to March 1987, was funded by the Manpower Services Commission, which does not operate in Northern Ireland. The Commission provided nearly £51 million over that period, to help fund the production of 30,000 hours of open learning materials and develop a range of supporting services. Up to 39 commission staff were involved at any one time. No information is available about additional resources provided by contracting bodies. The Department of Education for Northern Ireland funded a separate programme between March 1985 and March 1987, providing some £200,000 for supporting services for existing open learning materials, most of which have been produced by Open Tech.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Prime Minister if she will place in the Library the advice given to trades unions about options for reallocating responsibilities between the Department of Employment and the Department of Health and Social Security.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Prime Minister on how many occasions since 1983 the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been accompanied on his official visits to Brussels by a Welsh Office Minister.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend has not been accompanied on official visits to Brussels by a Welsh Office Minister since 1983.

  Scottish and Border Television Companies
  Mr. Sedgemore
  asked the Prime Minister, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Hackey, South and Shoreditch on 6 April, what is the estimated cost of her forthcoming meeting with news and current affairs executives from a number of broadcasting and newspaper interests in Scotland.

  The Prime Minister
  The estimated cost of this function is about £1,000. This will be in line with the cost of other similar functions held at 10 Downing Street.

  British Telecom
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister what is the current level of fees payable to British Telecom for the interception of telephone communications; on what basis the fee is calculated; with which other companies Her Majesty's Government have contracts in respect of such services; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on the details of the operation of the interception arrangements.

  Cruise Missiles
  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Prime Minister whether, in the light of the decision of the Belgian Government to delay the deployment of 32 cruise missiles, scheduled for delivery by the end of 1987 if negotiations on intermediate nuclear forces are still in progress by the end of the year, she has anything to add to her reply on 19 March, Official Report, column 554, regarding the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation policy towards the continued deployment of long range intermediate nuclear forces in the absence of an agreement with the Soviet Union; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Following Mr. Gorbachev's statement on 28 February the Belgian Government reaffirmed the position on missile deployments which it has held since 1985. After the meeting of NATO's Special Consultative Group (on INF) on 27 March, which includes all the European basing countries, the chairman issued a statement which included the following:"The SCG also reaffirmed the Alliance's readiness to modify, halt, reverse or dispense altogether with its deployment of LRINF missiles as part of a balanced, equitable and effectively verifiable arms control agreement. On the other hand, the Group confirmed NATO's determination to continue the deployment of LRINF missliles as scheduled, in the absence of an INF arms control treaty with the Soviet Union obviating the need for such deployments".

  Japanese Prime Minister (Letter)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  asked the Prime Minister if she will place in the Library a copy of the letter she received from Prime Minister Nakasone of Japan regarding trade relations with that country.

  The Prime Minister
  No. It is not normal diplomatic practice to publish exchanges of this kind.

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister what is her practice on allowing people other than Ministers, civil servants or serving officers to attend formal meetings of Cabinet Committees.

  The Prime Minister
  As a general rule no one who is not either a Minister or a servant of the Crown may be invited to attend a meeting of a Cabinet Committee. Exceptions to this rule are allowed only in most unusual circumstances.

  Engagements
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 April.
  346
  Mr. Tony
  Lloyd asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 April.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 April.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later this afternoon, including one with King Hussein of Jordan.

DEFENCE

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 19 January, Official Report, column 412, what information he has about United States satellite monitoring facilities on Diego Garcia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  The ground-based electro-optical deep space surveillance system on Diego Garcia is a space tracking station for the passive monitoring by light sensitive telescopes of objects in space, particularly satellites in geosynchronous orbit.

  Civilian Doctors (London Weighting)
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will pay a London weighting allowance to civilian medical practitioners employed by the Ministry of Defence in the London area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. The rate of pay of civilian medical practitioners employed by the Ministry of Defence is fixed by reference to notional figures used by the Doctors and Dentists Review Body when fixing the remuneration of NHS general medical practitioners. General medical practitioners in the NHS do not get extra remuneration for working in London and it would be wrong, having based the pay on that of an analogue which does not receive London weighting, to add London weighting to the Civil Service rate for civilian medical practitioners.

  Financial Management Initiative
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the effect on his Department of the financial management initiative.

  Mr. Stanley
  The Ministry of Defence's response to the financial management initiative, which incorporated developments already in train, primarily involved the introduction of a top management information system and managerial budgets with associated delegated powers (executive responsibility budgets and staff responsibility budgets). The Public Accounts Committee took evidence on this programme from the permanent under secretary on 17 December 1986. Changes stemming from MINIS include the reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence which came into effect on 2 January 1985 (Cmnd. 9315). The basic purpose of executive responsibility budgets, which now cover a very wide range of support activities in the United Kingdom, is to enable managers to carry out their tasks more efficiently and economically. The current programme involves some 340 units, with operating costs
  347
  of about £3·5 billion a year. Although the final stages of the implementation process have yet to be completed there are already indications that this new budgetary system is helping to promote greater cost consciousness and providing a basis for more effective planning and decision making. Examples of benefits in terms of better value for money include a significant improvement in engine repair times at a naval helicopter repair depot; a more economical system for the testing of blood specimens at an Army hospital; and increased productivity at RAF supply depots.

  The Department's financial training programme has been substantially expanded in the light of the financial management initiative. Training is being provided for service personnel as well as civilian staff.

  Service Personnel (Scotland)
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report the number of service personnel located in Scotland by virtue of port basing but who are resident elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Freeman
  5,419 Royal Navy personnel are currently serving on ships base ported in Scotland. It would not be possible without disproportionate effort to determine how many are resident elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report a breakdown of the total annual wage bill paid to service personnel based in Scotland for each of the past four years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Annual wage bills are not maintained by geographical area. The following is an estimate for the financial years 1983–84 to 1986–87 inclusive:

  £ million

  1983–84

  151·4

  1984–85

  169·0

  1985–86

  181·9

  1986–87

  192·3

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report the total amount of wages paid to Ministry of Defence service personnel included in the Scottish regional total but who are resident elsewhere in the United Kingdom for each of the past four years.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Civil Servants (Scotland)
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report the total annual wages bill paid to Scottish based Ministry of Defence civil servants for each of the past four years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This information is not readily available and to provide it would involve disproportionate cost and time.

  Royal Navy Armaments Depot, Coulport
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is able to estimate the number of job losses at Royal
  348
  Navy Armaments Depot, Coulport due to Trident missiles being serviced on board the vessels by members of their crews.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the number of jobs likely to be lost at Royal Navy Armaments Depot, Coulport and at the Faslane base due to the longer duration of patrols to be undertaken by Trident submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The planned pattern of Trident submarine patrols will have no bearing on the employment levels at Faslane and Coulport.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for the pattern of employment, in terms of specific skills, of the proposed refits of the United Kingdom Trident squadron; and what are the implications for the current labour force mix engaged in the Polaris refits.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Trident refits will be undertaken at Rosyth.

  Employment levels in the royal dockyards are matters for the commercial managers.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence for what purpose the United States navy vessel Vega calls at Royal Navy Armaments Depot, Coulport.

  Mr. Stanley
  The Vega calls at RNAD, Coulport to deliver material for use in connection with the support of the United Kingdom Polaris programme.

  US Forces (Scotland)
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report the breakdown of the annual payments received from the Government of the United States of America for the upkeep of their facilities located in Scotland for each of the past four years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Payments received from the Government of the United States of America for the upkeep of facilities made available to US forces in Scotland, that is maintenance and minor works services, for each of the last four years were:

  £

  1983–84

  1,140,126

  1984–85

  1,174,000

  1985–86

  1,221,059

  1986–87

  785,638

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report the current number of Ministry of Defence service and civil personnel in Ministry of Defence facilities located in Scotland.

  Mr Archie Hamilton
  The number of United Kingdom service personnel deployed in Scotland on 1 January 1987 was 20,846 and the number of full-time equivalent civilian staff was 18,130.

  Service numbers include RN/RM personnel serving on ships whose home port is in Scotland and which were in home waters on 1 January.

  Civilian numbers exclude casual staff.

  Clyde Submarine Base
  Dr Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of the cost of the expansion of (a) the Trident facilities and (b) the conventional facilities at the Clyde submarine base; and what percentage of the total Trident budget is represented by (a) above.

  Mr Freeman
  The total cost of works developments at the Clyde submarine base is estimated at some £550 million; of this, some £350 million can be attributed directly to the Trident programme and this figure amounts to 4 per cent. of the total costs of that programme. However, to the figure of £350 million must be added Trident works costs in other locations, contingency and certain other costs in order to arrive at a total which represents the figure of 7 per cent included in the breakdown of Trident costs made available to the House by my right hon. Friend on 27 January this year.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence why there has been an increase since May 1984 from 1,500 peak-time jobs to 2,500 jobs at the Clyde submarine base.

  Mr Archie Hamilton
  Since May 1984 the design of the facilities at the Clyde submarine base has been refined and the work required to build them more accuately defined. The construction programme for Trident in Scotland as a whole will, at its peak, create over 2,500 jobs; most of these will be at the Clyde submarine base.

  Air Defence
  Mr. Soames
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the efficiency and readines of the Royal Air Force air defence.

  Mr. Stanley
  The RAF's high standards of readiness and effectiveness are demonstrated in regular air defence exercises. We are in the midst of a very substantial programme to improve our air defences, which I outlined in my reply to the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) on 24 February, at column 217. Once completed, our air defence system will be greatly enhanced.

  Tornado F3
  Mr. Soames
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Tornado F3 fighter.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The excellent range and loiter capability of the Tornado air defence variant make it ideally suited for the role of air defence of the United Kingdom. Although the Tornado ADV's Foxhunter radar does not yet meet all the requirements of the Royal Air Force, action is in hand to rectify this. Radars to an interim standard have already been delivered.

  Mr. Soames
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about Royal Air Force air defence capability.

  Mr Stanley
  The only representation received recently is a letter from my hon. Friend.

  "A Nuclear Free Europe? Why it Wouldn't Work"
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many copies of the publication, "A Nuclear Free Europe? Why it Wouldn't Work", were printed; how many were distributed; and what was the total cost.

  Mr. Stanley
  "A Nuclear Free Europe? Why it Wouldn't Work" was published in 1982. From such records as are now available, it is estimated that 30,000 copies were printed, of which approximately 13,000 have been distributed so far. The total cost of production is estimated as £2,459.

  Fighter Pilots
  Mr. Soames
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Royal Air Force's current shortfall in operationally trained fighter pilots.

  Mr. Freeman
  The RAF has sufficient operationally trained air defence and fast jet pilots to fill all front-line cockpits and operationally related ground appointments.

  Observation Posts (Gwynedd)
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 April 1987, if he will publish in the Official Report the locations of the 40 observation points on Gwynedd at which rainfall measurements are taken.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A list of the meteorological observing stations in Gwynedd, showing the location name and national grid reference of each, is as follows:

  Grid reference

  Llanymawddwy, Troed-y-Foel

  2910 3195

  Aberangell, Esgairangell

  2829 3105

  Aberdovey

  2605 2960

  Llanegryn, Peniarth

  2612 3054

  Buarthre Newydd

  2745 3259

  Dolgellau

  2728 3187

  Talsarnau

  2610 3361

  Ffestiniog, Minafon

  2716 3433

  Trawsfyndd Power Station

  2695 3390

  Llydaw Intake

  2636 3547

  Nantmor

  2603 3463

  Porthmadog Power Station

  2569 3391

  Cwmystradllyn, Lower

  2557 3442

  Pant Glas, Bwlchderwin

  2459 3472

  Botwnnog School

  2263 3313

  Bardsey: Lighthouse

  2112 3206

  Edern Primary School

  2277 3393

  Glynllifon Park

  2455 3554

  Anglesey: Llansadwrn, Gladlys Lodge

  2553 3758

  Anglesey: Cefni Reservoir

  2444 3772

  Anglesey: Valley Met Office

  2309 3757

  Anglesey: Holyhead, Ty Mawr

  2217 3818

  Anglesey: Llyn Alaw

  2376 3853

  Angelsey: Amlwch, Penrhyd

  2427 3914

  Anglesey: Llwydiarth Esgob

  2436 3843

  Anglesey: Plan Cadnant

  2557 3731

  Pen-y-Ffridd Research Station

  2563 3705

  Aber, College Farm

  2656 3732

  Conway Mussel Tanks

  2785 3773

  Yspytty-Ifan Treatment Works

  2811 3456

  Vdelas Hall

  2851 3516

  Betws-y-Coed Field Centre

  2803 3571

  Belmont

  2815 3569

  Llanrwst, Gwydyr Uchaf

  2796 3608

  Cowlyd

  2738 3635

  Coedty Reservoir

  2756 3668

  Tal-y-Cafn, Penrhyd

  2791 3718

  351

  Grid reference

  Bodnant

  2800 3725

  Llanuwchllyn

  2878 3298

  Tryweryn Dam No 2

  2881 3399

  Bala Sluices

  2935 3356

  Diver Training (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if trainee divers from the Royal Engineering Diving Establishment at HMS Vernon are still training on the mudflats in Portsmouth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are a variety of diving courses which are held at the Royal Engineers Diving Establishment at Portsmouth. These comprise a basic five and a half-week course, a seven and a half-week advanced course and a three-week diving supervisors course. In addition, there are two day diving aptitude tests held for Army personnel who wish to be considered for training to become a qualified Army diver. In order to carry out diving, it is sometimes considered necessary for trainees to cross mudflats at low tide in order to reach the training area. In addition, for all diving training, an element of endurance training in dry suits is necessary. Military diving is an arduous and potentially dangerous activity often carried out in unpleasant conditions. Divers need to be fit, adaptable and determined.

  Divers are frequently required to wear dry suits for long periods and to carry out physically demanding tasks while wearing dry suits, both in and out of water. Endurance training in dry suits is a necessary and relevant part of both diver aptitude testing and subsequent diver training. There is no "mud-run" for personnel undergoing diver aptitude testing, but for those undergoing the formal diving training programme endurance training in dry suits is a necessary and relevant part of both diver aptitude testing and subsequent diver training. There is no "mud-run" for personnel undergoing diver aptitude testing, but for those undergoing the formal diving training programme endurance training in dry suits may include training on mud. All endurance training is strictly supervised by fully qualified instructors.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what technical investigations have taken place in the Gillingham area into the disposal of radioactive waste from the royal dockyards; and what have been the results of the technical investigations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no plans to dispose of radioactive waste from the royal dockyards in the Gillingham area. A small quantity of radioactive material is stored at MOD Gillingham and this will be removed to a permanent disposal site whenever one is available.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what technical investigations have taken place at Rosyth into the possible storage of radioactive waste within the dockyard or naval base; and what have been the results of the technical investigations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has carried out a comprehensive hazard analysis of the current facilities and procedures for 352
  handling radioactive waste, so as to permit the Rosyth dockyard and naval base to support the RN's fleet of nuclear submarines.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has set aside funds for the building of a new facility for storage of radioactive waste at Rosyth dockyard.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A new facility is planned and funds will be available.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what new policy decisions have been made (a) within the last two years and (b) within the last six months about the disposal, transportation and storage of radioactive waste created as a result of nuclear submarine refits at Rosyth dockyard.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It had been intended that one of the near-surface radioactive waste burial sites being investigated by NIREX would accept low-level and short-lived intermediate level waste from Rosyth. However, the Government, in responding to the Environment Committee's report on radioactive waste, published on 12 March 1986, decided that the chosen NIREX near-surface burial site should accept only low-level waste. Short-lived intermediate waste will now have to be stored until other arrangements can be made.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about future plans for the storage of radioactive waste at Rosyth dockyard and naval base at Drigg.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Low-level radioactive waste from Rosyth dockyard and naval base will continue to be sent for disposal at the shallow land burial site at Drigg until the new NIREX near-surface burial site is in operation, what that will be used.

  Gruinard Island
  Mr. Kennedy
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the results of the decontamination of Gruinard Island.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have now received the conclusions of the independent advisory group which has been reviewing the evidence on the efficacy of the decontamination treatment. The IAG has reported that it is convinced that the decontamination has worked well and considers on the basis of the evidence that the island could now be returned to civil ownership. The IAG has recommended, and I have accepted, that before the island is so returned, it should be demonstrated both to the group and to the general public that the whole island can be used in the same way as agricultural land on the mainland. This demonstration will be achieved by a local farmer shepherding part of his flock on the island during the coming summer.

  Defence Contracts
  Mr. O'Neill
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the companies or subsidiaries of companies based in Scotland, which are currently engaged in defence contracts or subcontracts.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 February 1987, c. 874]: I regret that the information required could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Land Registry
  Mr. Weetch
  asked the Attorney-General whether he will waive current charges relating to caution registrations using form 63/13, where protracted delays have occurred in the processing of registrations at district land registries.

  The Attorney-General
  Delays in the processing of appliations do not give rise to any need for the registering of cautions since the priority of such an application is determined by the date upon which it is received by the registry and not by the date upon which the certificate is issued.

  Mr. Weetch
  asked the Attorney-General what fees have been collected for the most convenient period in connection with registration of cautions using form 63/14 resulting from delays in registration of residential property.

  The Attorney-General
  About 850 caution applications are currently received each week. The fee for each application using form 63/14 is £20. There is no reason for believing that any of these cautions are lodged by applicants for registration concerned about delays in processing their applications since the priority of such applications is determined by the date upon which they are received by the Registry and not by the date upon which the certificate is issued.

  Mr. Weetch
  asked the Attorney-General what were current levels of staff in each of the district land registries at the most recent convenient date; and whether he has any plans to deploy more staff to reduce current delays in registration of residential property.

  The Attorney-General
  The permanent staff in posts at the end of February 1987 at each of the district land registries was as shown in the table below:

  Office

  Number

  Croydon

  478

  Harrow

  514

  Office

  First registrations

  Transfer of part/dispositionary first lease

  Dealing

  All categories

  Croydon

  60

  85

  52

  65

  Harrow

  60

  126

  67

  90

  Tunbridge Wells

  160

  180

  58

  72

  Lytham

  118

  83

  54

  78

  Nottingham

  150

  106

  25

  90

  Gloucester

  110

  135

  60

  92

  Stevenage

  160

  115

  51

  78

  Durham

  89

  66

  42

  70

  Plymouth

  149

  142

  69

  106

  Swansea

  107

  77

  40

  81

  Birkenhead

  65

  70

  40

  54

  Weymouth

  109

  75

  49

  73

  Peterborough

  101

  87

  25

  72

  A number of steps have been taken to taken up in dealing with applications These include computerisation, overtime recruitment, opening new offices and improvements in practice and procedure.
  354

  Office

  Number

  Tunbridge Wells

  624

  Lytham

  531

  Nottingham

  670

  Gloucester

  680

  Stevenage

  612

  Durham

  459

  Plymouth

  513

  Swansea

  383

  Birkenhead

  381

  Weymouth

  444

  Peterborough

  430

  In addition to the 13 district land registries, offices have recently been established at Telford and Coventry which together account for a further 111 staff. 555 casual staff are currently employed at district land registries. This is further supplemented by overtime. This level of staffing takes up the full authorised resources. As from 2 April 1987 a further 376 staff have been authorised at district registries and are being recruited and trained. The extent to which these will help to reduce current delays will largely depend on the levels of applications.

  Mr. Weetch
  asked the Attorney-General whether he will publish the surplus or deficit position on current transactions relating to each land registry district office in the last five years.

  The Attorney-General
  The Land Registry's revenue in the registration of title department exceeded expenditure by £64·5 million in the five financial years 1981–86. Profit and loss accounts are not separately maintained for individual district registries.

  Mr. Weetch
  asked the Attorney-General what is the current length of time taken by each of the district land registries to register residential properties after application; and whether any steps are being taken to expedite current levels of performance.

  The Attorney-General
  The table shows at each district land registry the average completion times in working days at the end of February 1987 for each category of substantive application.

  Mr. Weetch
  asked the Attorney-General what steps the Land Registry is taking in the light of the long current waiting periods for registration of residential property to protect applicants against the creation of further equitable interests.
  355
  The Attorney-General
  The priority of an application to register a purchase or mortgage is determined according to the date upon which the application is received by the Registry. Accordingly, the lodging of such an application will give the purchaser or mortgagee priority over any third party interests subsequently created.

  Mr. Weetch
  asked the Attorney-General what advice the Land Registry is issuing to applicants for registration who are likely to have to face delays for longer than 20 weeks.

  The Attorney-General
  When a new title application is lodged for registration, an acknowledgement card is sent indicating the likely number of weeks that the Land Registry will take to process the application. It contains a note explaining that if a delay in completing the registration will cause specific problems (for example, because of a pending resale of the property) and the Registry is informed every effort will be made to process the application as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Weetch
  asked the Attorney-General what was the last occasion when the work load of the Land Registry was assessed in relation to current levels of staff employed; and whether he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Land Registry's work load and staffing was assessed in April 1986 when the preparatory work was undertaken for the 1986 public expenditure survey.

  Mr. Weetch
  asked the Attorney-General what representations he has received from conveyancers, solicitors or their representative organisations on the delays relating to registration of residential property by the Land Registry.

  The Attorney-General
  During the last 12 months the Lord Chancellor has received some 12 letters of enquiry from solicitors and one from a conveyancing company regarding delays at the Land Registry. Some of these inquiries were general; some related to specific transactions. No formal representations have been received from representative organisations.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  India (Visa Applications)
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of personnel employed by the British high commission in India dealing with visa applications in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  The establishment of entry clearance officers (and above) dealing with applications at each of our posts in India on 1 January of each year was as follows:

  New Delhi

  Bombay

  Calcutta

  Madras

  1979

  5

  4

  1

  1

  1980

  5

  4

  1

  11

  1981

  5

  6

  1

  0

  1982

  5

  5

  1

  0

  1983

  6

  6

  1

  0

  1984

  6

  6

  1

  0

  1985

  6

  6

  1

  0

  1986

  6

  6

  1

  0

  1987

  11

  10

  2

  12

  356
  1 Immigration work transferred to Bombay March 1980 but resumed in Madras in October 1986 with the introduction of the visa regime.

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average waiting time for applications from citizens of India for entry visas to the United Kingdom at the latest date.

  Mr. Eggar
  Figures published for the last quarter of 1986 show that the waiting time for settlement entry clearance applicants was between two and 11 months in New Delhi and between four and 12 months in Bombay. There are no settlement queues in Madras and Calcutta.

  All applications for short-term entry clearance are considered within 24 hours. Of the estimated 13 per cent. needing further examination, the waiting time for those now applying in April is 10 days in New Delhi, one day in Bombay and three in Madras.

  Diplomatic Service
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many women currently hold the position of ambassador, high commissioner or chargé d'affaires within Her Majesty's diplomatic service.

  Mr. Eggar
  One woman currently holds the position of ambassador. No women currently hold that of high commissioner or chargé d'affaires.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Government of Bangladesh concerning the number of Bangladeshi families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Commonwealth Secretariat
  Mr. Hanley
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the move of the Commonwealth Secretariat to No. 2 Carlton gardens while Marlborough house is refurbished.

  Mr. Eggar
  On 6 April a memorandum of understanding was signed at Malborough house by the Secretary of State for the Environment on behalf of the British Government and the Commonwealth Secretary-General, covering arrangements relating to the move which will take place at Easter. Necessary refurbishment of the centre block of Marlborough house is expected to take about three and a half years to complete, following which the secretariat will reoccupy the premises.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Racial Incidents
  Mr. Deakins
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many racial incidents have been reported in the London borough of Waltham Forest in each of the past four years; and how many have resulted in a conviction.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to replies I gave to his question on 26 February 1987 at column 344

  357
  and to a question from the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Banks) on 4 December 1986 at columns 711–14. Information about convictions could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Nursing Advisory Council
  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the members of the Nursing Advisory Council set up to advise the head prison nursing services in developing the professional competence of prison hospital officers and nurses.

  Mr. Mellor
  The members of the advisory committee are Mr. Peter Barker, head of prison nursing services (chairman): Mr. J. K. Berry, hospital chief officer, HM prison Wormwood Scrubs; Mrs. J. Elliott, senior sister, HM prison Cookham Wood; Mr. D. Gooderham, English national board; Mr. D. N. Harrison, hospital chief officer, HM prison Wandsworth; Mr. J. Kay, Prison Officers' Association; Mr. A. Lee, chief nursing officer, Park Lane special hospital; Mr. P. Mellor, Royal College of Nursing; Mr. J. Tait, principal nursing officer, Department of Health and Social Security; and Mr. A. Taylor, Prison Officers' Association.

  Police (Complaints)
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances and why he set aside in Home Office guidance the requirement that consent to complaints being made against police officers must be given in writing.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The requirement for a member of the public to give consent in writing to a third party to make a complaint on his behalf is to be found in section 84(4) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It neither can be nor has been set aside in Home Office guidance.

  Deportation Orders
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many deportation orders were made in England and Wales in each year since 1979 to the latest date;

  (2) how many deportation orders were made in (a) Liverpool and (b) Merseyside in each year since 1979;

  (3) how many deportation orders were made in Northern Ireland in each year since 1979 to the latest date.

  Mr. Waddington
  Deportation orders for the whole of the United Kingdom are dealt with by the Home Office. The total numbers of deportation orders made in the United Kingdom are published annually in "Control of Immigration : Statistics, United Kingdom". Table 12 of the issue for 1985 (Cmnd. 9863) covers the years 1975–85. The total for 1986 was published in table 14 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin 3/87. Information by area of the United Kingdom is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications for permanent leave to remain were granted in (a) Liverpool and (b) Merseyside in each calendar year since 1979 to the latest date;
  358
  (2) how many applications were made for permanent leave to remain in (a) Liverpool and (b) Merseyside in each calendar year since 1979 to the latest date.

  Mr. Waddington
  The total numbers of persons granted settlement in the United Kingdom are published annually in "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom". Table 15 of the issue for 1985 (Cmnd. 9863) gives totals for the years 1975 to 1985. The total for 1986 was published in table 2 of Home Office statistical bulletin 3/87. Corresponding information on the total numbers of applications made and for particular areas of the United Kingdom is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration cases were dealt with by the Liverpool immigration office in each year since 1979 to the latest date.

  Mr. Waddington
  The available information is as follows:

  Passengers arriving at pools (including Liverpool airporl)

  Seamen seeking leave to discharge from ships

  Applications for leave to remain and cases involving illegal entry and deportation and interviews related to applications for entry clearances

  1979

  154,927

  3,772

  90

  1980

  69,620

  3,449

  311

  1981

  30,030

  2,543

  607

  1982

  18,631

  2,364

  1,722

  1983

  24,496

  2,632

  2,434

  1984

  22,394

  2,043

  2,786

  1985

  25,923

  1,759

  3,199

  1986

  10,781

  1,951

  6,025

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications were made for entry visas in India in each year since 1979; and how many were granted in each year to the latest date.

  Mr. Waddington
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Applications in India for entry clearance to the United Kingdom1

  Number of persons

  Applications received2

  Applications granted

  1979

  24,510

  20,180

  1980

  18,110

  17,010

  1981

  14,640

  13,910

  1982

  11,320

  9,810

  1983

  11,100

  8,650

  1984

  9,870

  8,000

  1985

  8,020

  6,440

  1986

  29,500

  26,230

  1 For settlement or temporary purposes

  2 Including applications which were subsequently withdrawn

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civil servants were employed in his Department dealing with visa applications from (a) Commonwealth and (b) non-Commonwealth countries in each year since 1979 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Waddington
  Many staff in the Immigration and Nationality Department carry out interviews and deal
  359
  with inquiries relating to applications for visas and other forms of entry clearance as part of their general duties, but their numbers cannot readily be assessed. Since Autumn 1986, four members of staff of the Immigration and Nationality Department have been engaged on the issue of re-entry visas. In addition staff of the passport department have been engaged on the issue of re-entry visas as follows:

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  17

  21

  22

  Figures for earlier years are not available; and it is not possible to differentiate between Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth work.

  Metropolitan Police (Special Safety Procedures)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the Metropolitan police special safety procedures regarding the no-go or difficult-to-police areas in London.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am told by the Commissioner that no such document exists.

  Bramshill Police Training College
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what were the original estimates for each aspect of the installation of the control and command centre at Bramshill police training college; what were the eventual costs of each contract; and which companies completed the works at the college;

  (2) which companies were awarded contracts in connection with the installation of the control and command centre at Bramshill police training college;

  (3) what was the initial estimate for the control and command simulation centre at Bramshill police training college.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the simulated operations complex which is being constructed at the police staff college, Bramshill to extend the training facilities there. A contract for the construction of the building was initially awarded to W. E. Chivers and Sons Ltd., with the main sub-contracts being awarded to Drake and Scull Ltd. and to Electrical Installations Ltd. The original estimate, at November 1983 prices and subject to variation of price in respect of labour and materials, was £1,771,000 which included £262,500 for mechanical services, £173,775 for electrical services and £200,000 for fees. Subsequently W. E. Chivers and Sons Ltd. was placed in the hands of receivers; the contract with the company was terminated and Drake and Scull Ltd. withdrew. A new contract to complete the construction was awarded to Lovell Construction (Southern) Ltd., and a new sub-contract for mechanical services awarded to Planned Maintenance Engineering Ltd. Payments to W. E. Chivers and Sons Ltd. totalled £271,699 subject to claims for damages. It is not possible to give the final cost of the other contracts because work will not be completed before the end of 1987.

  Prison Hospitals
  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of hospital rooms in prison hospitals will be provided with integral sanitation, and when he expects this work to be completed.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information is not collected centrally in the form requested. I will write to the hon. Member when the available information has been assembled.

  Prison Establishments (Nursing Cover)
  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to provide 24-hour on-call nursing cover in all prison establishments.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. It is the policy of the Director of Prison Medical Services to provide 24-hour medical cover in all establishments and 24-hour nursing cover in those establishments where that is judged to be necessary.

  Prison Hospital Staff (Training)
  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the review of the training needs of prison hospital staff in relation to the taking of X-rays, referred to in the Government's reply to recommendation 8 in the third report of the Social Services Committee, Session 1985–86, to be completed.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is hoped to complete the review by late summer.

  Mentally Disordered Prisoners
  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made by the joint Home Office/Department of Health and Social Security working group examining the problems of mentally disordered people in prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  The working group of Home Office and DHSS officials considering the problems presented by mentally disordered offenders in the prison system will report back to Ministers in May.

  Prisoners (Medical Attention)
  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct all prison officers that in all circumstances any prisoner asking to see a doctor should be able to do so.

  Mr. Mellor
  Prison rules require that every request by a prisoner to see the medical officer shall be recorded by the officer to whom it is made and promptly passed on to the medical officer. There is no reason to think that prison staff need to be reminded of the requirement.

  Drug Abuses
  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects discussions to be completed between the prison department and the probation service aimed at creating a framework for treatment and rehabilitation programmes for drug abusers whilst in custody and after release into the community; whether voluntary agencies are also being consulted about such a framework; and if he will make a statement.
  361
  Mr. Mellor
  We expect the discussions between the prison department and the probation service to be concluded shortly.

  These discussions are aimed at improving the cohesion at establishment level of existing effort to help drug misusers in prison, with particular reference to the interface between the prison medical service and the probation service, and of developing that effort across the prison system. Consultation with voluntary agencies about the framework would be inappropriate; however establishments will he encouraged to consider the contribution which suitable drug counselling facilities in the community may be able to make.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide such estimates as are available as to the number of potential electors who have failed to register for the current register; how this compares with each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The most recent estimates are those made by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in a published survey of electoral registration. The survey indicated that in 1981, 6·5 per cent. of eligible people in Great Britain were not included in the electoral register for their qualifying address. This compared with a figure of 3·5 to 4 per cent. found in a comparable survey in 1961. The Home Office has taken a range of initiatives in the light of the 1981 survey aimed at increasing the accuracy of the electoral register. We shall be continuing to work for improvements.

  Mr. David Sands
  Mr. Deakins
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Hampshire about the police visit to the home of Mr. David Sands prior to his death; and if he will state the branch and specialisation of the officers involved.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Hampshire that police officers went to Mr. Sands's home on the evening of 28 March 1987 after his wife had reported him missing. The officers involved were local uniformed police officers.

  Electors (Absent Votes)
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce an amendment to the Representation of the People Regulations to allow electors who have moved house to make application for an absent vote, which will continue without further application until such time as the applicant is no longer qualified for registration at his old address; and if he will remove the new requirement that such applications need to be attested.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Any change which allowed people who moved house to retain an absent vote for the duration of the current electoral register would require an amendment to the Representation of the People Act 1985, for which we have no present plans. We are not at present persuaded that the regulations should exempt people who have moved house, but no other applicants, from the necessity to have their applications attested.

  Guildford Pub Bombings
  Mr. Heffer
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why no mention was made in his Department's memorandum on the Guildford bombing case of the medical inquiry into the condition of Carole Richardson conducted at the request of the senior medical officer at HM remand centre, Risley, in April 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I shall reply as soon as possible.

  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times Paul Hill, serving a sentence for the Guildford pub bombings, was moved before being placed in Wormword Scrubs.

  Mr. Mellor
  Since returning to prison following his trial in 1975, 36 times.

  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received requesting an inquiry into the case of the four people convicted of the Guildford pub bombings.

  Mr. Mellor
  Since my right hon. Friend's statement of 20 January at columns 735–38 we have received 125 letters about this case. Fifty-eight are in the form of a circular letter. The letters variously express concern about the convictions, and 58 ask us to review the case further. One requests an inquiry.

  Scientists (Deaths)
  Mr. Deakins
  asked the Secretary of State for the I-tome Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Avon about the police investigation into the deaths of two scientists in Bristol in 1986; and if he will state the branch and specialisation of the police officers involved.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Avon and Somerset that the police investigation into the deaths of Mr. Dajibhai and Mr. Sharif have been completed. The coroner recorded an open verdict in the case of Mr. Dajibhai and a verdict of suicide in the case of Mr. Sharif. The police investigation was conducted by divisional CID officers under the supervision of a senior CID officer at Headquarters.

  Member's Correspondence
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, dated 20 February, about a prisoner in Her Majesty's prison, Long Lartin.

  Mr. Mellor
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 7 April.

  Senior Police Officers (Resignation)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to review the regulations that govern the resignation and subsequent taking up of other employment of a senior police officer from the Metropolitan and City of London police forces.

  Mr. Hogg
  The provisions relating to the resignation of police officers are contained in the Police Regulations 1979 and the Police Pensions Regulations 1987. We have no present plans to amend them.

  Ferry Passengers (Identification)
  Mr. Dubs
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with the French authorities about his proposal that ferry companies should carry out identity checks on intending passengers to the United Kingdom before they are allowed to embark at French ports; and whether the French authorities are agreeable to his proposals.

  Mr. Waddington
  Officials have confirmed with the French authorities that there are no obstacles to the proposals in French law.

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill
  Mr. Dubs
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the potential effect of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill on the number of immigration officers to be stationed at British ports.

  Mr. Waddington
  We have no plans to change the number of immigration officers available at British ports as a result of the Bill.

  Mr. Dubs
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the European Commission on the implications of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill for Her Majesty's Government's obligations under the EEC treaties.

  Mr. Waddington
  None.

  Mr. Dubs
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has had any requests to compensate ferry, passenger ship and airline carriers for the extra duties liable to arise as a result of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill.

  Mr. Waddington
  No.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Republic of Ireland (Meetings)
  Mr. Archer
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Tom King
  I met the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Lenihan on Monday. We had an informal discussion on a wide range of matters, including the future work of the conference. I look forward to working with Mr. Lenihan as co-chairman of the conference in the months ahead, in the interests of both our countries. In addition, yesterday under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union I had a valuable discussion with a distinguished delegation of Members of the Dail.

  Housing Executive
  Mr. Mallon
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had within the last six months with the chairman of the board of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

  Mr. Needham
  None, but I met the chairman in November 1986, when reviewing the Housing Executive's performance in meeting its strategic aims.

  Fair Employment Agency
  Ms. Clare Short
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had recently with officials of the Fair Employment Agency.

  Mr. Viggers
  I have had no such discussions recently.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has now received the full text of the Sampson report on the conduct of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and related matters.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a further statement on the Sampson inquiry into matters concerning the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

  Mr. Tom King
  I understand that Mr. Sampson submitted further material to the Chief Constable of the RUC recently. A copy was also given to the Director of Public Prosecutions. When the whole report has been received by the Chief Constable and the DPP(NI) and the Chief Constable has had an opportunity to place his comments before the DPP, the DPP will decide, after consultation with the Attorney-General, what directions to give as to criminal proceedings.

  As I have already informed the House, I will make a statement to Parliament at the earliest appropriate time on any aspects of the report that fall within my responsibility.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Hume
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will make a statement detailing what figures or estimates are available to him on the likely inflow to Northern Ireland in coming years of higher education students from the Republic of Ireland, following the European ruling with regard to payment of fees for European Community nations;

  (2) if he will make a statement outlining what assessment the Government have made of the repercussions on demand for student places in Northern Ireland of the new European Community arrangement; and whether such trends in demand will influence Government planning in relation to courses, college development or grants;

  (3) if he will make a statement indicating whether the Government have plans to seek, with authorities in the Republic of Ireland, the establishment of mechanisms to regularise, control or facilitate entry to higher education courses in Northern Ireland by students from the Republic of Ireland in the light of European Community arrangements.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is too early to gauge the long-term effect on participation in higher education in Northern Ireland, or indeed in the United Kingdom generally, of the Government's decision to reimburse the fees of EC students. For the foreseeable future the planned provision for higher education in Northern Ireland will be able to respond to demand from home, EC and overseas students, and we have no plans at present to establish new entry mechanisms for students from the Republic of Ireland.

  Open Tech
  Mr. Hume
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement indicating current and projected provision for Open Tech in Northern Ireland, outlining how such provision is or will be channelled.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In the current financial year, £200,000 is being made available. It is expected that at least similar provision will be made in subsequent years, subject to review. This is channelled through the Northern Ireland Open Tech centre.

  Interpreters for the Deaf
  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what support his Department has given in each of the last three years to organisations training interpreters for the deaf in Northern Ireland; and if he will specify how much in each year has been given for administration and for training.

  Mr. Needham
  In the last three years the Department of Health and Social Services has provided the following grant-aid(a) to enable deaf organisations to provide courses for deaf tutors or (b) to enable officers of deaf organisations to undertake courses in England leading to certificates in sign communication skills:

  £

  1984–85

  Nil

  1985–86

  887

  1986–87

  2,740

  In addition, a seeding grant of £35,000 was made in March 1987 to enable the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People to commence a training programme in communication skills in Northern Ireland.

  RUC-Strathclyde Police (Liaison)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on operational liaison between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Strathclyde police concerning antiterrorist activities.

  Mr. Scott
  I know that the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Strathclyde police maintain a close operational liaison on matters of mutual interest, including terrorism. These matters are, of course, confidential to the two forces.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Debt Rescheduling
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 3 March, Official Report, column 531, if he will list in the Official Report the amounts involved in each debt rescheduling agreement; whether the agreement was defaulted: and whether the agreement was made by the Export Credits Guarantee Department or the Overseas Development Agency.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information requested is set out in the following table.366

  Debt Rescheduling Agreements Made Between United Kingdom and Other Countries Since 1979

  (£ millions)

  Country and Date Agreement Signed

  ECGD Amount Involved

  ODA Amount Involved

  Bolivia

  21 January 1987

  0·05

  Brazil

  13 December 1984

  147·95

  31 December 1984

  0·96

  Central African Republic

  18 April 1986

  0·50

  Chile

  29 April 1986

  0·34

  Costa Rica

  12 March 1984

  0·71

  25 September 1984

  0·93

  30 January 1986

  0·60

  Cote D'Ivoire

  10 January 1985

  5·40

  17 October 1986

  3·99

  Cuba

  22 July 1983

  9·84

  3 October 1985

  6·93

  12 November 1986

  5·45

  Ecuador

  18 June 1984

  15·57

  29 January 1986

  23·64

  Jamaica

  27 December 1984

  5·86

  13 May 1985

  1·63

  27 December 1985

  3·03

  6 February 1986

  1·03

  Liberia

  26 October 1982

  1·26

  26 January 1984

  2·83

  8 October 1984

  1·75

  Madagascar

  4 April 1982

  1·66

  21 May 1983

  1·65

  7 January 1985

  4·46

  18 December 1985

  4·07

  Malawi

  7 July 1983

  1·48

  29 August 1984

  1·97

  Mauritania

  9 July 1986

  2·64

  Mexico

  31 January 1985

  22·19

  Morocco

  17 October 1984

  11·17

  20 August 1986

  0·87

  Mozambique

  13 August 1986

  22·93

  Niger

  11 October 1984

  2·26

  7 March 1985

  1·22

  28 September 1986

  1·15

  Peru

  27 April 1979

  0·10

  367

  Country and Date Agreement Signed

  ECGD Amount Involved

  ODA Amount Involved

  12 December 1979

  6·85

  12 March 1984

  9·37

  Philippines

  4 February 1986

  36·15

  Poland

  2 July 1981

  93·01

  30 November 1985

  542·47

  7 August 1986

  86·64

  Romania

  26 November 1982

  26·68

  8 December 1983

  11·02

  Senegal

  1 September 1982

  0·76

  11 January 1984

  0·51

  12 November 1985

  0·99

  12 November 1985

  0·46

  Sierra Leone

  30 June 1980

  0·25

  17 October 1985

  1·10

  Somalia

  14 August 1986

  13·34

  Sudan

  25 August 1980

  23·90

  25 August 1983

  11·41

  25 January 1984

  120·43

  Togo

  18 June 1980

  6·72

  27 April 1982

  7·13

  9 February 1984

  9·08

  5 February 1985

  1·28

  Turkey

  20 December 1979

  12·45

  5 December 1986

  99·65

  Uganda

  17 June 1983

  10·81

  10 November 1983

  3·29

  Yugoslavia

  6 December 1984

  36·59

  7 February 1986

  73·51

  Zaire

  26 September 1979

  1·30

  28 July 1983

  7·11

  28 July 1983

  2·44

  14 November 1984

  42·17

  7 July 1986

  5·81

  Zambia

  30 December 1983

  17·86

  15 February 1985

  18·98

  31 July 1985

  1·74

  20 August 1986

  50·24

  31 October 1986

  2·53

  Debt Service Payments and Aid
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in the Official Report the level of debt service payments to the United Kingdom, Her Majesty's Government and commercial banks, from all developing countries in 1985, both in cash terms and as a proportion of the total of such payments to the world.
  368
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 29 January, Official Report, column 472, to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), if he will state the level of total aid flows to the 29 poorest countries in Africa, and the level of debt service payments from those countries in 1984.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  OECD estimate that in 1984 total aid flows to the 29 poorest countries in sub-Saharan Africa were $6·5 billion. Debt service payments (including interest on short term debt but excluding IMF repurchases) were $3·4 billion.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase in central Government spending in each year since 1979, expressed in cash and in real terms; and what are the comparable figures for local government, giving in both cases the percentage annual increases.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The figures requested are given below:

  £ billion

  1Central government

  1Local authorities

  2Cash

  Real

  Per cent. change year on year in real terms

  2Cash

  Real

  Per cent. change year on year in real terms

  1979–80

  52·2

  84·5

  —

  21·5

  34·8

  —

  1980–81

  63·4

  86·5

  2·3

  25·0

  34·1

  -2·1

  1981–82

  73·0

  90·6

  4·8

  26·6

  33·0

  -3·2

  1982–83

  81·4

  94·2

  4·0

  29·1

  33·7

  2·2

  1983–84

  85·1

  94·3

  0·1

  33·2

  36·8

  9·0

  1984–85

  92·1

  97·8

  3·7

  34·9

  37·1

  1·0

  1985–86

  98·5

  98·5

  0·7

  35·2

  35·2

  -5·1

  1986–87

  105·0

  101·8

  3·4

  38·1

  37·0

  4·9

  1 The figures exclude finance for nationalised industries and other public corporations.

  2 Cash figures adjusted for general inflation as measured by the GDP deflator at market prices—base year 1985–86.

  Source: The figures are consistent with the 1987 public expenditure White Paper as updated by the 1987 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Superannuation Funds Office
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Superannuation Funds Office has returned to employers pension schemes submitted to it for approval before Budget day.

  Mr. Lamont
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's policy towards the eventual privatisation of all nationalised industries and public corporations.

  Mr. Lamont
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

WALES

  National Curriculum
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans for a national curriculum in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  Yes. Children in Wales are entitled to a school curriculum that is guaranteed to include the basic requirements of a sound education.

  The legislation to enable a national curriculum to be prescribed which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced to the Select Committee for Education and Science of this House on Tuesday 7 April will also apply to Wales.

  The core requirements of education in England and Wales are the same. Children in both countries deserve the same guarantee of a well-balanced foundation curriculum and I see every reason to expect that we should set the same attainment levels in Wales for basic subjects such as maths, English and science. That means that there needs to be the fullest involvement of all those concerned in Wales in the debates that will formulate the foundation curriculum. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced that we would be appointing a number of very strong working groups to advise on suitable attainment targets and the writing of the programmes to make sure these targets are achieved. Wales will be represented on these working groups and my officials will be co-operating closely with those of the Department of Education and Science in developing these proposals.

  There are also very real educational differences between England and Wales that need to be provided for. Welsh children must continue to have the opportunity to benefit from the distinctive elements in the Welsh curriculum. We shall want to ensure that the national curriculum has the

  Calendar years (£ million net)

  Source of aid

  1973

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Total

  European Regional Development Fund-Quota

  —

  —

  0·5

  1·9

  1·1

  0·3

  3·4

  6·5

  2·8

  5·9

  9·7

  4·1

  18·3

  19·1

  173·6

  European Regional Development Fund-Non Quota

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -2·7

  —

  1·8

  —

  0·3

  14·8

  European Coal and Steel Community

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·0

  16·1

  5·1

  27·9

  13·4

  5·1

  28·9

  5·0

  —

  —

  2102·5

  European Investment Bank

  —

  —

  17·5

  —

  —

  —

  7·6

  4·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20·0

  33·5

  52·6

  European Social Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·04

  —

  0·1

  0·3

  0·1

  0·7

  4—

  1·24

  European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5—

  Total

  18·0

  1·9

  2·1

  16·4

  16·1

  38·44

  16·2

  13·8

  38·9

  11·0

  39·0

  22·9

  234·74

  1 Figures are net of decommitments which have been effected in the event of approved projects not proceeding as originally envisaged.

  2 Figures for 1985 and 1986 are not available.

  3 Figures available only to end of June 1986.

  4 Figures exclude grant aid on schemes operated on a national and regional basis eg by the Manpower Services Commission.

  5 Grants from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee cannot be split between counties. The Wales total to date is £343·3 million.

  Singleton Hospital (Casualty Unit)
  Mr. Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) why the proposal for an accident and emergency consultant for the Singleton casualty unit was referred to the Welsh Medical Manpower Committee; and in what circumstances he can make such a decision without referral to that committee;
  370
  flexibility to take full account of Welsh history and culture. We shall also need to ensure that proper provision is made for children who study through the medium of the Welsh language.

  There is a wide measure of consensus that a national curriculum is now needed. The Government's firm belief is that it is possible and necessary to achieve the broadest agreement on the content of that curriculum on the basis of the best advice available. I look for a wide debate in Wales on our own particular needs and the closest involvement with the discussions throughout England and Wales which will contribute to the national curriculum.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average farm income in Wales for the latest available period; what are the comparable figures in member states of the EEC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  Data relating to farm incomes in the EEC and Wales are published in the Communities publication "Farm Accounts Results 1982–83 — 1983–84", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. However, care must be taken to appreciate the limitations of this material as is made clear by the notes to the text.

  Clwyd
  Dr. Marek
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the amount received in Clwyd in the form of the various loans and grants by the European Economic Community for each of the years of United Kingdom membership.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  Comprehensive information is not available at the county level. Details of identifiable EC grants and loans are as follows :

  (2) when he expects the proposal for an accident and emergency consultant for the casualty unit at Singleton hospital to be put before the Welsh Medical Manpower Committee; by what criteria that committee makes its recommendations; when he expects to be able to announce a final decision; and if he will make a statement.
  371
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  Approval for the establishment of a new consultant post by a district health authority in Wales is a matter ultimately for my right hon. Friend. By agreement with the medical and dental professions, my Department's consideration of applications for the establishment of such posts follows on advice from the Welsh Medical and Dental Manpower Committee, which is composed of leading members of the professions in Wales.

  In considering any particular proposal, the Committee generally has regard to all the circumstances of that case: this will normally include service need, the professional content of the proposed post and its location within the operational and professional structure of the health authority.

  My Department has requested further information from the West Glamorgan district health authority about its proposal to resolve the operational difficulties of providing 24-hour cover at the accident and emergency

  Unemployment by duration: South Pembrokeshire TTWA

  Duration of unemployment

  January 1984

  January 1985

  January 1986

  January 1987

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Up to 1 year

  2,148

  16·0

  2,249

  16·2

  2,383

  17·2

  2,502

  18·0

  Over 1 and up to 3 years

  570

  4·2

  687

  4·9

  758

  5·5

  552

  4·0

  Over 3 and up to 4 years

  87

  0·6

  116

  0·8

  160

  1·2

  111

  0·8

  Over 4 and up to 5 years

  17

  0·1

  60

  0·4

  93

  0·7

  98

  0·7

  Over 5 years

  30

  0·2

  40

  0·3

  72

  0·5

  107

  0·8

  All Durations

  2,852

  21·2

  3,152

  22·7

  3,466

  25·0

  3,370

  24·3

  Source: NOMIS

  Comparisons between January 1987 and earlier years should be made with caution due to a change in the method of compilation of the unemployment statistics in March 1986.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will investigate delays in paying the hill livestock compensatory allowance to farmers in Gwynedd during the past quarter of the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  There were no delays—76·5 per cent. of HLCA claims received in Gwynedd were passed for payment before 31 March and this compares with 67·4 per cent. in 1985. It is not meaningful to make a comparison with 1986 because in that year, a system of advance payments operated.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Raffan
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of infant and junior school pupils were taught Welsh in the latest year for which statistics are available.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  In 1985, 59 per cent. of infant and 72 per cent. of junior pupils were taught Welsh, either as a first or second language.

  Mr. Raffan
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of each age group of secondary school pupils were taught Welsh in the latest year for which statistics are available.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The percentage of secondary school pupils in September 1985 who were taught Welsh was:372
  Unit at Singleton hospital through the establishment of a new consultant post. When that information is to hand, the question of manpower approval will be remitted to the Welsh Medical and Dental Manpower Committee for consideration at its next scheduled meeting. The committee is next due to meet on 7 July.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are unemployed in south Pembrokeshire; how many have been unemployed for (a) five years, (b) four years, (c) three years and (d) one year; what percentage unemployment this represents; and how many were unemployed in each of the years since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  Numbers of unemployed and unemployment rates for the travel-to-work area of South Pembrokeshire between January 1984 and January 1987 are given in the following table. Comparable information is not available before this date.

  Per cent.

  A s a first language

  As a second language

  Total

  Form I

  11

  68

  79

  Form II

  11

  62

  73

  Form III

  11

  50

  61

  Form IV

  10

  18

  28

  Form V

  10

  17

  27

  Form VI

  4

  3

  7

  Mr. Raffan
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the change in the number of bilingual primary and secondary schools in the last five years.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Between 1981–82 and 1985–86 the number of bilingual primary schools increased from 62 to 67 and the number of bilingual secondary schools increased from 13 to 16. The figures are as follows:

  Primary

  Secondary

  1981–82

  62

  13

  1982–83

  64

  13

  1983–84

  64

  14

  1984–85

  64

  16

  1985–86

  67

  16

  Mr. Raffan
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the number of examination entries through the medium of Welsh since 1979.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is set out in the following table:
  373

  Level

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Advanced:

  Entries

  364

  319

  374

  440

  481

  540

  519

  623

  Subject

  15

  19

  18

  19

  15

  20

  16

  17

  Ordinary:

  Entries

  2,255

  2,861

  3,601

  3,785

  3,857

  4,412

  4,500

  5,333

  Subject

  28

  31

  33

  32

  31

  35

  34

  39

  CSE:

  Entries

  1,689

  2,047

  2,372

  2,605

  2,745

  2,705

  2,299

  2,023

  Subjects

  31

  33

  34

  38

  41

  39

  37

  35

  TVEI
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's policy concerning Manpower Services Commission funding of Welsh-medium technical and vocational education initiative schemes.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The technical and vocational education initiative is administered by the Manpower Services Commission in consultation with Education Departments. Local education authorities bid for funding to support such developments.

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance his Department has offered to the Manpower Services Commission concerning the funding of Welsh-medium technical and vocational education initiative schemes.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My Department has made clear to the Manpower Services Commission my interest in Welsh language matters.

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales why the 1986 application by the Welsh Joint Education Committee to the Manpower Services Commission for a four-year £1 million Welsh-medium technical and vocational education activities project was rejected.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Within the funds available and in the light of the announcement to extend TVEI to all schools and colleges, the MSC considered that other projects submitted were more relevant to the overall aim of the TVEI.

  AIDS
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide extra funding to enable the Welsh region of the national blood transfusion service to acquire the facilities to process and store extra plasma for factor VIII; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mark Robinson
  Additional funds have already been made available to South Glamorgan Health Authority to enable the Welsh region of the national blood transfusion service to acquire additional facilities to harvest and store plasma for factor VIII production at the blood products laboratory, Elstree.

  YTS
  Mr. Skinner
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take the appropriate steps to investigate the financial operation of the YTS scheme administered by the Development Board for Rural Wales; why the scheme is
  374
  to be transferred to the Mid Wales Training Unit; and if he will arrange for an independent audit into the scheme covering the period 1983 to 1987.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

EMPLOYMENT

  Women
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General (1) what courses are available for attracting women science arid technology graduates who wish to re-enter (a) the labour market and (b) the teaching profession;

  (2) what courses or classes are available under the umbrella of his Department for women who wish to reenter (a) the labour market and (b) the teaching profession.

  Mr. Trippier
  All Manpower Services Commission training schemes are open to women. In addition, the MSC runs a number of schemes under its wider opportunities training programme designed specifically to help women returning to the labour market. None of these courses cater specifically for science and technology graduates. The MSC also provides business for women to take an Open University course "Women into Technology", which is designed to help women enter or reenter industry as technicians. Training courses designed to help women re-enter the teaching profession are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  Manpower Services Commission
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General what steps the Manpower Services Commission takes to ensure that all companies in receipt of funds from it have complied with company law in respect of accounting and financial records.

  Mr. Trippier
  All limited liability companies with which the Manpower Services Commission has contracts are required to comply with company law in the same way as all other limited liability companies.

  The companies are subject to external audit, and external auditors have a responsibility to advise companies on compliance with company law. The audited accounts, together with information required on the annual return, must be filed with the Registrar of Companies.

  If, during the course of approval and monitoring work, staff of the Manpower Services Commission become aware of any failure to comply with company law, the facts will be pointed out to the company. The company will be advised to take the necessary steps to put matters right.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Paymaster General whether he will bring up to date the labour force figures given in his reply dated 28 April 1986, Official Report, columns 335–37; and if he will add a table for the same years covering manufacturing.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information from the regular quarterly employees in employment series is presented in tables 1 and 2.

  The available information from the "Labour Force Survey" is presented in table 3 below.

  Table 1

  Employees in Employment in Great Britain

  Thousand

  June

  Males Full-time

  Males Part- lime

  Males All

  Females Full-time

  Females Part-time

  1971

  12,840

  584

  13,424

  5,468

  2,757

  1972

  12,719

  600

  13,319

  5,454

  2,877

  1973

  12,813

  665

  13,478

  5,442

  3,163

  1974

  12,675

  689

  13,363

  5,512

  3,421

  1975

  12,542

  697

  13,240

  5,422

  3,551

  1976

  12,398

  699

  13,097

  5,366

  3,585

  1977

  12,395

  681

  13,076

  5,433

  3,617

  1978

  12,396

  705

  13,100

  5,486

  3,688

  1979

  —

  —

  13,183

  5,585

  3,870

  1980

  —

  —

  13,018

  5,500

  3,941

  1981

  —

  —

  12,278

  5,290

  3,817

  1982

  —

  —

  11,930

  5,202

  3,783

  1983

  —

  —

  11,670

  5,125

  3,776

  1984

  —

  —

  11,619

  5,234

  3,889

  1985

  10,869

  822

  11,691

  5,301

  4,012

  1986

  10,789

  852

  11,641

  5,315

  4,136

  Table 3

  Labour force survey data on employees1 in Great Britain

  Thousands

  Males

  Females

  Aged 16 to 19

  Aged 20 +

  Aged 16 to 19

  Aged 20 +

  All industries

  Manufacturing industries

  All industries

  Manufacturing industries

  All industries

  Manufacturing industries

  All industries

  Manufacturing industries

  1979

  Full-time2

  1,002

  381

  11,902

  4,825

  838

  275

  4,496

  1,326

  Part-time2

  41

  6

  235

  58

  75

  6

  3,631

  611

  All employees3

  1,044

  383

  12,137

  4,883

  913

  280

  8,127

  1,937

  1981

  Full-time2

  840

  280

  10,798

  4,002

  727

  185

  4,381

  1,194

  Part-time2

  122

  6

  287

  74

  181

  6

  3,594

  480

  All employees3

  975

  289

  11,237

  4,135

  917

  195

  8,058

  1,695

  19834

  Full-time2

  701

  227

  10,489

  3,654

  584

  142

  4,335

  1,007

  Part-time2

  110

  6

  245

  45

  198

  6

  3,390

  361

  All employees3

  815

  231

  10,755

  3,706

  788

  151

  7,878

  1,386

  19844

  Full-time2

  677

  236

  10,413

  3,587

  580

  148

  4,377

  1,043

  Part-time2

  154

  12

  272

  46

  231

  11

  3,715

  376

  All employees3

  831

  249

  10,693

  3,635

  812

  160

  8,096

  1,420

  19854

  Full-time2

  654

  237

  10,479

  3,614

  576

  159

  4,440

  1,031

  Part-time2

  159

  11

  278

  47

  252

  6

  3,787

  393

  All employees3

  813

  248

  10,760

  3,661

  828

  167

  8,229

  1,424

  376
  Note: In this table a part-time employee is defined as one who normally works for 30 hours or less. The full-time, part-time split for males is available only at dates for which a census of employment was conducted and post-September 1984.

  Table 2

  Employees in Employment in Manufacturing Industries—Great Britain

  Thousand

  June

  Males Full-time

  Males Part- time

  Males All

  Females Full-time

  Females Part- time

  1971

  5,469

  73

  5,542

  1,870

  478

  1972

  5,289

  69

  5,358

  1,802

  461

  1973

  5,283

  78

  5,361

  1,795

  518

  1974

  5,271

  86

  5,357

  1,770

  596

  1975

  5,087

  81

  5,168

  1,650

  534

  1976

  4,962

  79

  5,041

  1,582

  496

  1977

  4,980

  78

  5,058

  1,615

  499

  1978

  4,955

  85

  5,040

  1,608

  491

  1979

  —

  —

  5,001

  1,617

  490

  1980

  —

  —

  4,805

  1,532

  464

  1981

  —

  —

  4,344

  1,345

  409

  1982

  —

  —

  4,103

  1,276

  373

  1983

  —

  —

  3,862

  1,220

  336

  1984

  —

  —

  3,751

  1,225

  326

  1985

  3,663

  54

  3,717

  1,230

  322

  1986

  3,578

  52

  3,630

  1,220

  312

  Note: The full-time, part-time split for males is available only at dates for which a census of employment was conducted and post-September 1984.
  377

  Males

  Females

  Aged 16 to 19

  Aged 20 +

  Aged 16 to 19

  Aged 20 +

  All industries

  Manufacturing industries

  All industries

  Manufacturing industries

  All industries

  Manufacturing industries

  All industries

  Manufacturing industries

  19865

  Full-time2

  645

  243

  10,389

  3,630

  549

  155

  4,521

  1,027

  Part-time2

  168

  12

  282

  42

  265

  12

  3,873

  379

  All employees3

  814

  255

  10,678

  3,672

  816

  167

  8,398

  1,406

  1 The labour force survey estimates relate to the spring of each year. Figures for 1979 and 1981, but not later years, include those on Government employment and training schemes if reported as in employment as an employee.

  2 In this table an employee is shown as full or part-time according to whether he/she considers his/her job to be a full or part-time job.

  3 Includes those who did not state whether their job was full or part-time.

  4 The estimates for these years differ slightly from those in the previous reply, because of improved estimating procedures for persons aged 16 to 19 and the exclusion of persons on Government employment and training schemes.

  5 Preliminary results.

  6 Less than ten thousand.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Paymaster General (1) when he expects to announce revised local unemployment rates based on the employment figures contained in the 1984 census of employment;

  (2) if he will publish the revised national and regional unemployment rates for each month since June 1983, based on his updated employment figures contained in the 1984 census of employment.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim
  asked the Paymaster General what was the percentage change in unemployment in Derbyshire, between January 1986 and January 1987, for those people without a job for more than three years.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. Comparison of unemployment between 9 January 1986 and 8 January 1987 is slightly affected by the change in the compilation of the unemployment statistics in March 1986. The published numbers of claimants unemployed for over three years in Derbyshire on the two dates are 7,731 and 8,738 respectively.

  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim
  asked the Paymaster General what are the latest figures available for the number of people in work in Derbyshire; and how this compares with 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest available information for country areas and covering both employees and the self-employed comes from the 1981 census of population and is contained in the "County Report for Derbyshire", part 1 ref: CEN 81 CR10, a copy of which is in the Library. No similar data are available for 1979.

  Education and labour market status of 16 to 24-year-olds1 in Great Britain

  January 1985

  16-year-olds

  17-year-olds

  18-year-olds

  19 to 20-year-olds

  21 to 24-year-olds

  Number (000s)

  Per cent.

  Number (000s)

  Per cent.

  Number (000s)

  Per cent.

  Number (000s)

  Per cent.

  Number (000s)

  Per cent.

  Total population

  872

  100

  897

  100

  910

  100

  1,881

  100

  3,578

  100

  Full-time education

  393

  45

  278

  31

  156

  17

  260

  14

  158

  4

  School3

  269

  31

  167

  19

  22

  2

  3

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Further education4

  123

  14

  102

  11

  53

  6

  29

  2

  17

  ..

  378
  Mr. Kennedy
  asked the Paymaster General if he will state the number of persons in full-time employment as at (a) June 1986 and (b) the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In June 1986 there were 16,105,000 full-time employees in employment in Great Britain. In September 1986 (the latest date for which estimates are available) the figure was 16,234,000. These figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  Mr. Blair
  asked the Paymaster General if he will publish the total effect on the numbers on the unemployment register of those working in special employment and training measures, for each month from February 1986.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 36]: For the latest estimate of the percentage effect of the employment measures on the unemployment count I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on 27 March 1987, at column 293. The estimates provide no more than a very rough guide to the effect of such measures on the count and we do not, therefore, publish monthly count figures claiming to incorporate the effect.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will list, for each year of the age range 16 to 25, the number and proportion of those in school, work, further education, higher education, community programmes, or other specified scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 April 1987, c. 152]: The latest available estimates are set out in the following table. Figures are not available for 25-year-olds and those for 19 to 24 year olds are not available for each year of age separately.
  379

  16-year-olds

  17-year-olds

  18-year-olds

  19 to 20-year-olds

  21 lo 24-year-olds

  Number (000s)

  Per cent.

  Number (000s)

  Per cent.

  Number (000s)

  Per cent.

  Number (000s)

  Per cent.

  Number (000s)

  Per cent.

  Higher education4

  1

  ..

  8

  1

  82

  9

  228

  12

  141

  4

  YTS5

  234

  27

  39

  4

  4

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Claimant unemployed

  108

  12

  150

  17

  180

  20

  8

  —

  8

  —

  Other6

  137

  16

  430

  48

  570

  63

  9

  —

  9

  —

  of which

  Community Programme7

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  10

  —

  10

  —

  35

  1

  Young Workers Scheme7

  ..

  ..

  63

  7

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme7

  11

  —

  11

  —

  11

  —

  11

  —

  11

  —

  Community Industry7

  12

  —

  12

  —

  3

  ..

  1

  ..

  ..

  ..

  January 19862

  16-year-olds

  / 17-year-olds

  18-year-olds

  Number (000s)

  Per cent

  Number (000s)

  Per cent.

  Number (000s)

  Per cent.

  Total population

  860

  100

  870

  100

  895

  100

  Full-time education

  390

  45

  273

  31

  156

  17

  School3

  266

  31

  162

  19

  22

  2

  Further education4

  123

  14

  104

  12

  53

  6

  Higher education4

  1

  ..

  8

  1

  80

  9

  YTS5

  228

  27

  36

  4

  2

  ..

  Claimant unemployed

  101

  12

  140

  16

  164

  18

  Other6

  142

  17

  420

  48

  573

  64

  of which

  Community Programme7

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  10

  —

  Young Workers Scheme7

  ..

  ..

  57

  7

  ..

  ..

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme7

  11

  —

  11

  —

  11

  —

  Community Industry7

  12

  —

  12

  —

  3

  ..

  Source: DE, MSC, DES estimates

  1 Ages as at 31 August of preceding year (see also footnote7). Estimates are not available for 25-year-olds, or for single years of age above 18.

  2 Provisional estimates are not yet available for age groups above 18.

  3 Pupils attending maintained, independent and special schools are included.

  4 Full-time and sandwich, excluding private further education. Excludes those aged 16–18 on YTS within colleges.

  5 Includes those (aged 16–18), in further education establishments attending YTS courses.

  6Mainly those in employment outside YTS. Includes those neither employed nor seeking work, (for example because of domestic responsibilities), and those seeking work but not claiming benefit. Excludes those holding a contract of employment under YTS.

  7Age breakdown based on profile of entrants. The schemes shown in the table are the only ones current at the dates specified which cover persons in the relevant age groups.

  .. Under 500 or ½ per cent.

  8 Estimate not available for age group shown: estimate for 19 to 24-year-olds is 831,000 (15 per cent. of the population).

  9 Estimate not available for age group shown: estimate for 19 to 24-year-olds is 4,210,000 (77 per cent. of the population).

  10 Estimate not available for age group shown: estimates for 18 to 20-year-olds are 44,000 at January 1985 and 69,000 at January 1986.

  11 Estimate not available for age group shown: estimates for 18 to 24-year-olds are 9,000 at January 1985 and 13,000 at January 1986.

  12 Estimate not available for age group shown: estimates for 16 to 17-year-olds are 3,000 at both January 1985 and January 1986.

  Note on rounding:

  Numbers are shown to the nearest 1,000 but cannot in all cases be regarded as accurate to that degree. The estimates involve a range of data sources and adjustments and rounding to the nearest 5,000 may therefore, be more appropriate, particularly for the residual other category (see footnote 6).

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will give the number of people over 18 years who receive training allowances through the Manpower Services Commission to support them in their training; and how this figure compares with each of the last eight years.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 April 1987, c. 156]: The figures give the information requested. These are of course not the numbers of people being trained with Government support, but only the numbers who receive an income by way of allowance when being trained.
  380

  Number

  1985–86

  84,000

  1984–85

  92,000

  1983–84

  102,000

  1982–83

  73,000

  1981–82

  71,000

  1980–81

  83,000

  1979–80

  91,000

  1978–79

  70,000

  Final figures for 1986–87 are not yet available. Figures for years before 1978–79 were not recorded on a comparable basis.

  Workfare
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Paymaster General if he will publish the terms of reference of the study being carried out by the University of Buckingham into workfare.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  This independent study is being carried out by the employment research centre of the University of Buckingham, which describes it as a feasibility study of a community workfare system in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Paymaster General if he will place in the Library all working papers available from the study into workfare now being completed by the University of Buckingham.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The study of workfare is being carried out by the employment research centre of the University of Buckingham, which is responsible for publishing its conclusions.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Paymaster General what information has been accumulated by his Department on the workings of the various United States of America unemployment benefit systems and of workfare; and from what sources.

  Ministerial Visits

  Dates

  Minister/accompanying official(s)

  Purpose of visit

  1 October to 7 October 1983

  Mr. Morrison, with two officials

  To see and discuss United States schemes for the unemployed

  15 November to 20 November 1985

  Lord Young, with one official

  To visit major trade promotion events and United States programmes on inner cities problems

  30 March to 7 April 1986

  Paymaster General, with one official

  To see and discuss inner cities problems and urban regeneration project

  13 July to 15 July 1986

  Mr. Lang, with two officials

  To see employment programmes in Massachusetts

  5 March to 11 March 1987

  Lord Young, with three officials

  To discuss United Kingdom inward investment, enterprise and deregulation

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Paymaster General, pursuant to his answer of 2 April, Official Report, column 559, if he will list the changes in the conditions for claiming unemployment benefits that have been or are the subject of review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  All the conditions governing the receipt of unemployment benefit are kept under review as a matter of normal course.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Meadowcroft
  asked the Paymaster General whether he will amend the regulations for awarding grants under the enterprise allowance scheme so as to place those under the age of 50 years on the same footing as those over 50 years of age; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The specific purpose of the enterprise allowance scheme is to provide an incentive for unemployed people in receipt of unemployment and supplementary benefit who would otherwise be deterred from going ahead with their business plans because they would lose their entitlement to benefit. People under 50 and those 50 and over are on essentially the same footing. However, in the case of redundant mineworkers, those 50 or over receive under the redundant mineworkers
  382
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We continually gather information from a wide variety of sources on all aspects of employment policy in other countries, including the United States. Sources include published articles and academic research and visits by Ministers and officials.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards workfare schemes.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We have no plans to introduce a workfare scheme. Our policy is to help the long-term unemployed to get back into work through restart and the programmes to which it is a gateway.

  USA (Visits)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Paymaster General if he will list all visits to the United States of America by Ministers or civil servants in his Department since June 1983; and if he will explain the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Visits by Ministers in their departmental capacity to the United States from June 1983 to date were as follows. We do not hold records centrally of visits by officials only.

  payments scheme a benefit known as "unemployment benefit equivalent", which is accepted as a qualifying benefit for the enterprise allowance scheme. Redundant mineworkers under 50 do not secure "unemployment benefit equivalent" but will qualify for the enterprise allowance scheme so long as they are in receipt of unemployment or supplementary benefit. I have no plans to amend the rules of the enterprise allowance scheme as the hon. Member suggests.

  Mr. Meadowcroft
  asked the Paymaster General if he will make it his policy to allow those who arc unemployed and have savings above £3,000 as a result of redundancy payments to qualify for the enterprise allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The enterprise allowance scheme is specifically designed to provide an incentive for unemployed people in receipt of unemployment or supplementary benefit who would otherwise be deterred from going ahead with their business plans because they would lose their entitlement to benefit. People in receipt of unemployment benefit, whatever their savings, will be eligible for the scheme. However, people with over £3,000 in savings from whatever source who have exhausted their entitlement to unemployment benefit are not normally eligible for supplementary benefit and are therefore ineligible to join the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Training Measures (Bury)
  Mr. Burt
  asked the Paymaster General what was the total number of people benefiting from special employment and training measures at the latest available date in the constituency of Bury, North; and what is the average cost per person under each.

  Mr. Lee
  It is not possible to give a precise total figure for the number of people on employment, enterprise and

  Programme

  at

  Numbers Helped

  Area

  First Year Direct Exchequer.1 Cost per person no longer unemployed 1987–88 (forecast)

  Community Programme

  27 February

  420

  Bury Metropolitan Borough Area

  2,050

  Voluntary Projects Programme

  31 March

  77

  Bury North Constituency

  2

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme

  7 April

  795

  Greater Manchester (North) Area

  1,800

  New Workers Scheme

  31 March

  1,035

  Greater Manchester (North) Area

  1,300

  Job Release Scheme

  31 March

  82

  Bury Area

  1,900

  1 These figures are for the schemes nationally and are published in the public expenditure White Paper.

  2 VPP participants are not normally removed from the unemployment register.

  In addition, in the area including Bury, Prestwich and Radcliffe up to 31 March 1987, 1,035 people started YTS training and in Bury, 562 people started adult training courses. The gross cost per filled place for YTS in 1986–87 is estimated to be £2,600. Similar information for adult training is not available.

  Tourism
  Mr. Sumberg
  asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on the performance of tourism in 1986 and prospects for the coming year.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government have today published a leaflet entitled "A bumper year for tourism", which provides information on tourism performance in 1986. This shows that there was strong growth in domestic tourism spending with overseas tourism earnings equalling the record £5·5 billion spent in 1985. On the basis of recovery in the numbers of overseas visitors in the last quarter of 1986 and the high level of forward bookings, prospects for 1987 look good.

  Research and Development
  Sir David Price
  asked the Paymaster General what is his Department's planned expenditure on research and development for 1987–88; and what are the main areas of research selected by his Department under the Rothschild principles of the customer-contractor relationship.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply,7 April 1987, c.154]: My Department's planned expenditure on research and development for 1987–88 is shown in table A and that of the Manpower Services Commission in table B.

  All research and development work conducted by my Department and the Manpower Services Commission is designed to assist with the achievement of the publicly stated objectives of the Department of Employment group.
  384
  training measures in the constituency of Bury, North, because of the various bases on which local information is collated. Figures for the constituency of Bury, North are available only at disproportionate cost. The following table gives what information is available for the number of people on employment measures, and the first year net exchequer cost per person no longer unemployed.

  Table A

  DE's Planned Expenditure on Research and Development in 1987–88

  £000s

  External research

  Labour Market Studies

  360

  Groups in the Labour Market

  165

  Employment Measures

  103

  Careers Service/Youth Employment

  198

  Industrial Relations/Pay and Incomes

  89

  Small Firms and Tourism

  234

  Enterprise and Deregulation

  101

  1,250

  Internal costs

  Cost of managing external work and conducting some internal work

  553

  Development

  Work to enhance the effectiveness of ED Group Programmes

  550

  2,353

  Table B

  MSC's Planned Expenditure on Research and Development in 1987–88

  £000s

  Enterprise and Job Creation

  2,555

  Labour Market Efficiency

  1,154

  Employment Measures

  547

  Youth Training Scheme

  9,547

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative

  439

  Adult and Occupational Training

  8,723

  Labour Market Research

  264

  TOTAL

  23,229

ENVIRONMENT

  London Docklands Development Corporation (Site Sales)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a list of sites sold by the London Docklands Development Corporation since 1981,

  385
  itemising how much each was sold for, and the amount of London Docklands Development Corporation funds spent on site work, reclamation and infrastructure.

  Mr. Mikardo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will provide a list of sites sold by the London Docklands Development Corporation since 1981, itemising the price at which the sale was made, and the amount of London Docklands Development Corporation funds spent on site works, reclamation and infrastructure.

  Mr. John Patten
  Appropriate information is being collated by the LDDC. I will write to the hon. Members when it is available.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Mikardo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many firms have moved out of the Docklands urban development area or have closed down since July 1981; and how many people were employed in those firms.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 6 April 1987, at column 26.

  Sports Facilities
  Mr. Fallon
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list the principal grants made towards sports facilities in each of the counties of Cleveland. Durham, Northumbria and Tyne and Wear since 1979.

  Mr. Tracey
  I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  Accommodation Agencies
  Mr. Frank Cook
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many accommodation agencies have continued to trade after successful prosecution; and how many directors of accommodation agencies have continued to trade after a successful prosecution.

  Mr. Tracey
  We have no evidence that accommodation agencies or their directors have continued to trade after having been successfully prosecuted.

  Local Authorities (Overtime Payments)
  Mr. Michael Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to restrict the amount of overtime payments which may be earned by local authority employees to no more than 50 per cent. of their basic remuneration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government have no plans to introduce such legislation.

  Rate Support Grant
  Mr. Michael Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the central Government rate support grant per head of population for 1986–87 and 1987–88 for (a) Northamptonshire, (b) Derbyshire, (c) Leicestershire, (d) Bedfordshire, and (e) Cambridgeshire.

  Mr. Chope
  The figures requested are as follows:386

  1986–87 RSG £p/h

  1987–88 RSG £p/h

  Northamptonshire

  145·2

  133·8

  Derbyshire

  123·3

  133·4

  Leicestershire

  150·7

  143·5

  Bedfordshire

  90·4

  58·2

  Cambridgeshire

  105·1

  91·1

  Rate support comprises block grant and domestic rate relief grant. Counties do not receive domestic rate relief grant.

  The figures for 1986–87 are authorities' entitlements based on budgeted expenditure information at first supplementary report.

  The figures for 1987–88 are authorities' initial entitlements to grant based on expenditure figures returned on form BG78, modified if necessary to include an estimate of the cost of the teachers' pay settlement.

  River Pollution
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policy towards control of river pollution in the light of the recent research results published by Greenpeace, a copy of which has been sent to him, showing that 35£5 per cent. of all the flounders examined in the inner region of the Thames were diseased or abnormal in their appearance.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am aware of this report which was released at the time of the recent Water Research Centre conference on the North sea. However, I do not see the results of this study as having any direct implications for my Department's general policy on the control of river pollution, which is to restore and maintain the wholesomeness of our rivers. To this end, we rely on part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 which provides a comprehensive system of controls covering all significant waters. In addition, the Government have put forward a number of detailed proposals to strengthen these controls in the context of our privatisation proposals, and these are actively being considered.

  The setting up last week of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution with a specific water pollution inspector capability, will considerably strengthen the Department's role in the enforcement of controls which in turn should lead to further improvements in water quality.

  Bathing Waters
  Mr. Couchman
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish the interim results of the survey of the quality of bathing waters he announced on 3 December 1985; and in the light of these results, he is satisfied with the quality of the United Kingdom's bathing waters.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those of the 1,500 sites investigated for the storage of low or intermediate level nuclear waste that were in the constituency of Leyton or in adjoining constituencies; and if he will make a statement.
  387
  Mr. Crowther
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any site in south Yorkshire has been included in a list of possibly suitable sites for the disposal of low level or intermediate level radioactive waste.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Members to the answers I gave on 6 April at column 29, to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard).

  Financial Management Initiative
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the effect on his Department of the financial management initiative.

  Mr. Ridley
  The approach embodied in the FMI is changing working assumptions throughout my Department. Results are reported annually to the House in the public expenditure White Paper (currently, Cmnd. 56) as well as in such reports as the White Papers on the FMI and the annual reports by major sponsored bodies.

  The range of systems reflecting this approach include:

  The MINIS top management system which reviews the progress against objectives and the future targets of all parts of the Department.

  Line management systems (LMS) in all parts of the Department, giving positive reporting on delegated responsibilities.

  An organisation for financial management (OFM) system of delegations identifying responsibilities in the policy line for financial management of each public expenditure sub-programme and vote sub-head. This system is being extended to running costs. Six hundred officials have been trained in financial management.

  Devolved budgeting and monitoring throughout the Department for an increasing range of running costs. This system has recently been simplified, and the scope for virement between budget centres improved.

  In common with the rest of the Civil Service, annual staff reports now review progress against the personal objectives and work plans agreed at the start of the reporting period.

  Similar systems are in operation in the Property Services Agency, adapted to suit the agency's roles of managing the civil and defence estates and providing the Government's accommodation services. The major changes over the last eight years have been the introduction on the civil estate of the property repayment services scheme which has transferred to the client the responsibility for funding most accommodation services and the introduction in the defence estate of local works maintenance budgets.

  For the longer term, we shall shortly be getting the results of a study of improvements to the agency's accounting systems which I hope will lead to a more commercial approach to its operations and an ability to compare PSA services directly with those provided by the private sector.

  Effective corporate planning processes link the Department to all its major sponsored bodies. These focus on ministerial objectives, progress towards them and cost-effectiveness.
  388
  Outside the Department, the independent Audit Commission for local authorities is spreading the many lessons that can be learnt from the best of local authority financial management.

  Since 1979, manpower has fallen by 35 per cent. in the Property Services Agency, including the Crown Suppliers. Other departmental staff have been reduced by 42 per cent., 2,500 of the savings being due to improved efficiency. Productivity is still rising.

  Defective Housing
  Mr. O'Brien
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are the beacon rents for defective houses in the Yorkshire and east midlands registration areas;

  (2) how many houses which are identified within the Housing Defects Act 1984 have been registered for fair rents.

  Mr. Tracey
  Information on registered rents does not show whether the properties concerned have been designed under the Housing Defects Act 1984 (now Housing Act 1985), and there is not beacon rent specifically for defective houses. Beacon rents are assessed only for four standard property types. The July 1986 beacon rents for modernised 1930s three bedroom semi-detached houses, which may be of a broadly similar size to some of the common types of defective houses, range from £20·75 to £26·73 per week in Yorkshire, and from £20·75 to £23·75 in the east midlands.

  Mr. O'Brien
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the recommendation by the Building Research Establishment that defective houses should be examined at least every five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Building Research Establishment has recommended that designated unrepaired PRC properties first be inspected and tested as necessary, and then, in the light of that assessment, re-inspected periodically (not necessarily at five-year intervals). We have received no recent representations on this advice.

  Falkland Islands (Equipment Sale)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was realised at the sale in Liverpool on 7 April of equipment from the Falkland Islands; to what use the proceeds of that sale will be put; what proportion of the equipment has been re-exported as a result of the sale; and on what basis the port of Liverpool was selected as the agents for this auction.

  Mr. Chope
  The sale in Liverpool on 7 April was privately organised and the Department was not involved. At the end of the Mount Pleasant airport contract Laing Mowlem ARC Joint Venture, the main contractor, sold its surplus plant and equipment to a company which arranged and paid for its transportation to the United Kingdom. The purchaser arranged the sale at Liverpool (through a firm of auctioneers) and the proceeds belong to him.

  Derbyshire (Expenditure)
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) by how much gross county council

  389
  expenditure has risen in Derbyshire, in real terms, between (a) 1980–81 and (b) 1981–82 and the latest date for which figures are available; and how these figures compare with the average gross county council expenditure rises over the same period of time;

  (2) by how much current county council expenditure has risen in Derbyshire, in real terms, between (a) 1980–81 and (b) 1981–82 and the latest date for which figures are available; and how these figures compare with the average current county council expenditure rises over the same period of time.

  Mr. Chope
  I shall answer these questions shortly.

  Local Authority Services (Tendering)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on which activities he proposes to exclude from his forthcoming legislation requiring tendering for local authority services.

  Dr. Boyson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 2 February at column 491. Application of the legislation in Scotland will, of course, be the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Playboard
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what initiatives his Department has taken since the inception of Playboard to promote and develop its responsibilities;

  (2) what alternatives he considered for the future of Playboard prior to September 1986; and why he rejected them;

  (3) if he will make a statement about the representations he received from organisations interested in the future of Playboard.

  Mr. Tracey
  Playboard itself was set up to pursue initiatives for children's play through funding from this Department. since 1983 the Department's contribution has amounted to £2·4 million. In addition, the Department has maintained support for children's play through the urban programme (over £6 million each year). since 1983, the Department of Health and Social Security has spent £6·5 million on initiatives for the Under-fives while maintaining its financial support, with the Department of Education and Science, for other voluntary organisations concerned with children's play.

  Apart from the preferred option of merging Playboard's role and functions with the Sports Council's, a number of other options were considered, including maintaining support for Playboard, ceasing support altogether, and transferring the resources to the urban programme. The representations I have received from interested organisations about the "merger" primarily have been concerned with two issues: the case for the independence of play from sport, and with the scale of future funding.

  I understand those concerns, but do not believe that the merger proposal preclude a separate identity for children's play. Nor does it affect in any way the support for play through the urban programme or from other Departments. Following Playboard's decision to go into liquidation, I am pursuing urgently with the Sports
  390
  Council how best early arrangements can be put into place for achieving greater benefits for children's play in a more cost-effective way.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many families were in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in each borough in London in March 1987; and what are the equivalent figures for 1986 and 1985 respectively.

  Mr. Tracey
  The statistical publication "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England—Results for the fourth quarter 1986", which is to be published on 10 April, will include in table 7 the numbers, reported to this Department by the boroughs, of the households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation at the end of December: copy will be placed in the Library.

  Figures for December 1984 and December 1985 appear in corresponding publications for the second half of 1984 and the fourth quarter of 1985, respectively: these are available in the Library. Since publication of those reports, the following late returns have been received:

  Brent—677 December 1984

  Lambeth—98 December 1984 and 173 December 1985

  Merton—7 December 1985

  In addition, the number at December 1985 for Haringey has been revised to 195.

  Homeless Families
  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) why guidelines arc issued to housing authorities on the acceptance of homeless families who were from overseas;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning Bangladeshi families in bed and breakfast accommodation in London;

  (3) what advice his Department has issued to the London borough of Tower Hamlets concerning the application of the intentionally homeless rule under the Homeless Persons Act.

  Mr. Tracey
  Guidance to all local authorities on the exercise of their functions under part III of the Housing Act 1985 is contained in the Department's code of guidance (a copy of which is in the Library). Paragraphs 2.13–2.20 of that code are concerned with intentional homelessness, and paragraph A.2.2 is relevant to the treatment of people from overseas. Section 71(1) of the 1985 Act requires local authorities to have regard to the guidance in the code. Recent representations about the housing of Bangladeshi families in bed and breakfast accommodation have been from the London boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Westminster.

  Smaller Building Contracts
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a interim report on the progress made by the working party which he has established to review the carrying out by the building industry of smaller building contracts, including the effects of competition from the black economy.
  391
  Mr. John Patten
  The working party have met twice. At its next meetings it will be considering the scope for industry-wide warranty/guarantee schemes and the marketing of firms trading legitimately.

  Stockbridge Village Trust
  Mr. Thornton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the financial position of the Stockbridge village trust; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Stockbridge Village Trust was set up in 1983, with the full agreement of residents, to take over and refurbish what had been one of the most rundown local authority estates in the country. Using a mixture of public and private finance, the trust embarked on a unique redevelopment programme involving the repair and remodelling of the bulk of the existing tenanted housing and selling vacant plots of land for new housing, both for sale and for rent.

  By September 1985 the trust had made substantial progress with this physical programme and, equally importantly, the trust had gained its tenants' confidence as a responsible and efficient landlord. In contrast to pre-trust days when over 10 per cent. of the estate had been vacant, the estate was now fully occupied with a waiting list of some 300 applicants.

  Experience suggested that some of the initial assumptions and financial projections needed revision. We therefore appointed the consultants Ernst and Whinney to carry out a comprehensive appraisal of the trust's position and long-term prospects. It reported that the trust was managing the estate efficiently and carrying out its capital programme effectively, but it recommended some restructuring in the interests of long-term financial stability.

  My Department discussed a package of measures, with the trust and its backers—Abbey National building society, Barclays Bank and Knowsley M BC, and I can now announce that full agreement has been reached by all the parties. These measures will enable the trust to complete its redevelopment of the estate. To complement them, there will be a continuing programme of new building for private sale, including sale on shared ownership terms. The Stockbridge Village housing association's programme of new build for fair rent is now largely complete. The metropolitan district of Knowsley will, with urban programme support, demolish the three Denes tower blocks in the centre of the estate and build a major leisure facility in their place.

  I am pleased that all parties have reaffirmed their commitment to this trail-blazing initiative. The trust has already achieved a great deal, in refurbishing large areas of the estate, in building a new shopping centre, and in creating confidence in an area where around 200 residents have now bought their homes under the right to buy, and over 120 new homes have been built for owner-occupation. I look forward to the trust completing its programme successfully.

  Eldon Hill (Quarrying)
  Mr. Norris
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in the light of his recent decision to refuse to allow an extension of quarrying at Eldon Hill in the Peak District, he will make a statement on his policy on working and winning of minerals in national parks.
  392
  Mr. Waldegrave
  All applications for development whether inside or outside national parks must be considered on their own merits. However, it is also the Secretary of State's policy as expressed in DOE Circular 4/76 that, because of the serious impact mineral working may have on the natural beauty of the parks, applications for the extraction of minerals in national parks must be subject to the most rigorous examination. In his view extraction should be demonstrated to be in the public interest, and consideration of such applications should therefore normally include an assessment of:

  (i) the need for the development, including the extraction of the mineral, in terms of national considerations and the impact of permitting or refusing it upon the local economy;

  (ii) the availability and cost of alternative sources of supply;

  (iii) any detrimental effect on the environment and the landscape and the extent to which that could and should be moderated;

  (iv) whether in the light of this assessment the proposed development would be justified in the public interest.

  Local authorities should have regard to this policy in the preparation of, and alterations to, their development plans.

  Zoological Society
  Mr. Wheeler
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will announce details of further financial support to the Zoological Society of London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am pleased to say that the Government and the Zoological Society of London have agreed on both the level of funding for 1987–88 and the mounting of a radical study of the options for the future management and funding of London zoo and Whipsnade park. My right hon. Friend therefore intends to grant to ZSL £2 million in 1987–88 as revenue support plus a sum of up to £150,000 to match money raised by ZSL from private sources in 1986–87.

  In addition ZSL has agreed that before the end of 1987–88 it will see whether there is a basis for submitting firm proposals for attracting new capital. In order to assist it, ZSL will, jointly with DOE, commission a firm of consultants to investigate the options. The study, which will be part paid for by the Government, will have the following terms of reference:

  (i) To advise on the kinds of zoos which ZSL might appropriately develop for future visitors.

  (ii) To identify the scope for introducing private capital into the zoo operation, in association with measures to increase revenue from visitors.

  (iii) To draw up a prospectus which can be used by ZSL as a basis for attracting potential investors.

  We shall consider the need for any further Government support for ZSL in the light of the outcome of the study and ZSL's own proposals.

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Sir John Wells
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the Government's views on the reviews of the financial guidelines for management agreements under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and if he will make a statement.
  393
  Mr. Waldegrave
  A study of the operation of the financial guidelines was carried out by consultants in 1985. We have carefully studied their report and concluded that the basis of the present system is sound and that the guidelines do not require major amendment. However, we do propose to accept a number of the consultants' recommendations for improvements to the guidelines to assist conservation authorities in securing value for money. A consultation paper is being issued today explaining our proposals in detail and seeking the views of interested parties. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  European Year of the Environment
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what his Department is contributing to the European Year of the Environment.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 March 1987, c. 518]: Application forms will be available shortly for the funds available to grant aid projects within the EYE programme, and my Department will pay grant as early as possible on schemes recommended by the UK EYE committee. Pending parliamentary approval of the main Supply Estimate urgent expenditure estimated at £150,000 will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farmers (Income)
  Sir Peter Hordern
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average income of a cereal farmer in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The estimated average net farm income of specialist cereal farms in England and Scotland during each of the last five years for which data are available is as follows:

  Year

  Average net farm income of specialist cereal farms (£000 per farm)

  1981–82

  9·7

  1982–83

  16·1

  1983–84

  16·5

  1984–85

  19·8

  1985–86

  2·3

  Source: The Farm Business Survey in England and Scotland

  Note: Figures given are the latest obtained from the Survey for the year in question.

  Hill Sheep Farming
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the Commission of the European Communities since 1 January concerning the state of hill sheep farming in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jopling
  The sheep sector generally is prospering under the regime we negotiated in 1980. Production has expanded: market prices are rising seasonally and producers are receiving the benefit of the variable premium. Sheep producers in the hills have benefited in recent months from the HLCA payments and from the 394
  special 75 per cent. advance payments of sheep annual premium. The European Commission has proposed that the annul premium should be limited to the first 1,000 sheep in any flock in the less-favoured areas, a proposal which we resisted successfully last year and which we have continued to resist this year.

  Dairy Farms
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the Commission of the European Communities since 1 January concerning the state of smaller dairy farms in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jopling
  In my approach to discussion of milk issues in the Community since 1 January I have aimed to take account of the interests of all sectors of the United Kingdom dairy industry.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any proposals for a review of milk quota leasing arrangements for tenant farmers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jopling
  The European Commission has expressed serious doubts about the legality of our quota leasing arrangements. I am trying hard to change its mind on this and I am in direct communication with the Commission on the problem.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what literage of milk quota was transferred in the financial year 1986–87 by (a) sale and (b) leasing in England and Wales.

  Mr. Jopling
  For the milk quota year 1986–87 the provisional total volume of quota sold or leased with land was 430 million litres. 199 million litres was temporarily reallocated through the short term leasing scheme operated by the MMB.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to put the leasing system for milk quotas back into operation.

  Mr. Jopling
  The European Commission has expressed serious doubts about the legality of our quita leasing arrangements. I am trying hard to change its mind on this and am in direct communication with the Commission on the problem.

  Poultry Industry
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement as to the present state and future prospects of the poultry rearing industry.

  Mr. Jopling
  Demand for poultrymeat has been expanding rapidly and prices have remained strong. Egg consumption has shown a long-term decline; egg prices were weak last year due to over-supply but have shown some strengthening recently. The future prospects of our poultry producers will depend essentially on their ability to match production to the needs of the market-place.

  Wine Production
  Mr. Steen
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make it his policy to resist any attempts to impose rectified concentrated grape must in the production of English wine until such time as enrichment is necessary and permitted;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that only English-produced sugar and not rectified concentrated grape must from Italy is permitted to be added to the fermentation process of English wine until such time as enrichment is necessary or permitted;

  (3) if he will consider making grants available for the establishment of English vineyards for (a) the purchase of vines, (b) their support, (c) trellissing, (d) wiring and (e) windbreaks;

  (4) what grants are currently available for the establishment of English vineyards and ancillary purposes in the light of his alternative land use policy;

  (5) what is his policy regarding the manifestation of phylloxera in English vineyards;

  (6) if he will abandon his policy of attempted eradication of phylloxera in English vineyards.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I shall reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Quick Frozen Food
  Mr. Craigen
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the cost implications of the European Community's proposal on quick frozen food.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  We consider that this directive will impose unjustifiable costs on businesses, and retailers in particular, if adopted in its present form. For this reason the United Kingdom has repeatedly asked the EC Commission for a cost-benefit analysis of their proposals but none has been forthcoming to date. We will continue to seek modification to the proposals to make them more acceptable to the United Kingdom.

  Agricultural Houses
  Mr. Richard Page
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has completed consultations on charging for non-statutory advice to local planning authorities for appraisals relating to agricultural dwelling houses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jopling
  Following consultations with interested parties my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have decided to proceed with our proposals to charge for this service with effect from 1 May 1987. A charge of £28 per hour plus VAT will apply to advice by MAFF and WOAD on applications for the building of agricultural dwelling houses and for the lifting of agricultural occupancy conditions on existing houses. However, it is envisaged that in future such advice will only be sought in the more complex cases. The majority of cases will be capable of determination by the local planning authorities with whom responsibility rests.

  No charges are to be introduced for statutory advice on planning applications for agricultural development and the new charges are not expected to affect planning decisions or planning policy.

SCOTLAND

  Rates
  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to compensate the churches in Scotland for the loss, with the introduction of the community charge, of the exemption from rates of domestic premises occupied by ministers of religion or priests under section 4 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions etc.) (Scotland) Act 1962; and if he will make a statement;

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have no such plans. As an essential element of our proposals to replace domestic rates, all adults aged 18 or over will be required to pay a personal community charge and this will, of course, apply to ministers of religion and their families.

  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the value of the exemption from rates for domestic premises occupied by ministers of religion or priests under section 4 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions etc.) (Scotland) Act 1962 to churches in Scotland together with the number of properties benefitting from this for the latest period for which figures are available; and if he will give any breakdown on the basis of the value of the exemption or number of premises exempted for the Church of Scotland, Roman Catholic Church and other denominations, respectively.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Information on the value of rates exemptions under section 4 of the 1962 Act is not held centrally.

  Interpreters for the Deaf
  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give for each of the last five years the total grant paid by central Government under section 9 and section 10, respectively, of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or under any other heading to the Scottish Association of Interpreters for the Deaf;

  (2) how many qualified interpreters for the deaf there are in Scotland; and how many of these hold the certificate in communication with the deaf as a result of attendance at the courses run at Moray House college of Education.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Prisoners (Visits)
  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the rights of prisoners serving long-term sentences in Scottish prisons in terms of visits from family and friends.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Prisons (Scotland) Standing Orders specify a minimum visit entitlement of two 30-miniute visits every calendar month for sentenced prisoners. Up to three visitors may be present at any one visit. Long-term prisoners may also be transferred to a more convenient prison temporarily in order to receive accumulated visits.

  Details of these entitlements are set out in Standing Order M. The minimum entitlement to visits was increased to the current level in 1984. Copies of Standing Order M are available to inmates in all penal establishments.

  The frequency and length of visits may exceed the minimum entitlement where facilities and demand for visits at a particular establishment permit.
  397
  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the rules governing the issue of passes to families and friends of prisoners to allow visits to be made; and if. in particular, he will explain who is entitled to such a pass, what expenses are covered and how often one individual applicant can obtain such a pass.

  Mr. Malcolm Rifkind
  The family and friends of a convicted prisoner require visiting orders in order to be admitted to a penal establishment to make a visit. Each visiting order may admit up to three people.

  Financial assistance for fares and, where necessary, the cost of overnight accommodation and meals, for visits to prisoners may be provided under the prisons assisted visits scheme. The scheme is administered in Scotland by local social security offices on behalf of the Scottish Home and Health Department. Spouses and other close relatives may be granted assistance for up to 13 visits each year, provided they are receiving supplementary benefit (or, otherwise are in receipt of low income and not in full-time work), and wish to visit a convicted prisoner who is serving a sentence of more than three months or an unconvicted prisoner who has been in custody four weeks or longer. (The same prisons assisted visits scheme operates in England and Wales.)

  Licensing Boards
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether guidance is given by his Department to chairmen and members of licensing boards in Scotland to assist them in the performance of their duties.

  Mr. Lang
  While the Scottish Home and Health Department has offered guidance to licensing boards on the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, under that Act it is for each board to determine how its provisions should be applied within its area.

  School Books
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent by each local education authority in Scotland on the purchase of text books in each year since 1978–79 in terms of (a) current prices and (b) 1978–79 prices.

  Mr. John MacKay
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which authorities or bodies made representations to him prior to the award of his authorisation to Babcock-Thorn to dispose of radioactive waste at Rosyth dockyard.

  Mr. Ancram
  The following local authorities and public bodies responded to consultation:

  Fife Regional Council

  Fife Health Board

  Dunfermline District Council

  Forth River Purification Board

  Lothian Regional Council

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which bodies were invited to make representations about the award of the nuclear site licence to Babcock-Thorn.
  398
  Mr. Lang
  Her Majesty's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate sought the views of the Ministry of Defence, the Industry Department for Scotland, the Scottish Development Department and Babcock-Thorn.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what occasions since 1974 nuclear site licences have been awarded without any consultative process.

  Mr. Lang
  I am advised by Her Majesty's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate that during the period in question no licence has been awarded in respect of a new nuclear installation without consultation.

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons were on the housing waiting list of each islands and district council in Scotland in May 1979, May 1983 and the most recent month for which figures are available.

  Mr. Ancram
  Reliable information on a consistent basis is not available centrally.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will tighten the requirements for competitive tendering for local authority road works in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  My right hon. and learned Friend has now considered the results of a survey of roads authorities in Scotland, and has decided to reduce from £50,000 to £25,000, with effect from 1 April 1988, the threshold above which all general roads works in Scotland must be put out to tender. Subject to the outcome of a further survey of the performance of Scottish roads authorities over the period 1986–87, regulations to make this change will be laid in due course. We are satisfied that this further measure of competition will help to secure better value for money expended by local authorities on roads work.

  Suicides
  Mr. McTaggert
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the number of suicides in Scotland under the age of 25 years for each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. John MacKay
  The information is as follows:

  Deaths from suicide of persons aged under 25, Scotland, 1981–85)

  Number

  1981

  65

  1982

  59

  1983

  52

  1984

  55

  1985

  68

  Population Statistics
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will express by sex the percentage of the Scottish population in each socio-economic group.

  Mr. Lang
  The latest information available comes from the 1981 census of population and is as follows:
  399

  Percentage of economically active persons in each socio-economic group, by sex, Scotland, 1981

  Socio-economic group

  Percentages

  Male

  Female

  1 Employers and managers in central and local government, industry, commerce, etc.—large establishments

  5·7

  2·4

  2 Employers and managers in industry, commerce, etc.—small establishments

  5·6

  2·6

  3 Professional workers—self-employed

  0·8

  0·1

  4 Professional workers—employees

  4·2

  0·9

  5.1 Ancillary workers and artists

  6·1

  14·4

  5.2 Foremen and supervisors—non-manual

  0·7

  1·0

  6 Junior non-manual workers

  8·5

  35·7

  7 Personal service workers

  1·4

  13·4

  8 Foremen and supervisors—manual

  3·8

  0·7

  9 Skilled manual workers

  29·2

  4·2

  10 Semi-skilled manual workers

  14·0

  10·0

  11 Unskilled manual workers

  7·3

  8·1

  12 Own account workers (other than professional)

  3·1

  1·0

  13 Farmers—employers and managers

  1·0

  0·1

  14 Farmers—own account

  0·8

  0·1

  15 Agricultural workers

  2·0

  0·4

  16 Members of armed forces

  1·4

  0·1

  17 Inadequately described occupations

  4·3

  4·7

  Source: 1981 census of population (10 per cent. sample).

  Note: The sum of the percentages may not be 100 due to rounding.

  Education (Statistics)
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the sex and socioeconomic background of the school-leaving population with one or more highers; and how this compares with 10 years ago.

  Mr. John MacKay
  The available information is set out in the table.

  School leavers with one or more highers; by sex and by social class

  Percentages

  1975–76

  1983–84

  (a) Sex

  Boys

  50

  46

  Girls

  50

  54

  Total

  100

  100

  (b) Social Class (of father)

  I (Professional)

  14

  13

  Appendix D

  Time spent in custody by persons released from life sentences1

  Years detained in custody

  Year of release

  6 to7

  7 to8

  8 to 9

  9 to 10

  10 to 11

  11 to 12

  12 to 13

  13 to 14

  Over 14

  Total

  1968

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  1969

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1970

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1971

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1972

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1973

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  6

  1974

  —

  —

  2

  5

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  10

  1975

  —

  1

  4

  6

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  15

  1976

  —

  1

  6

  5

  5

  1

  —

  —

  —

  18

  1977

  —

  —

  2

  4

  5

  1

  1

  1

  1

  15

  1978

  —

  —

  5

  4

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  13

  1979

  1

  1

  2

  5

  6

  2

  2

  1

  1

  21

  1980

  —

  —

  3

  4

  6

  4

  5

  3

  —

  25

  1981

  —

  1

  7

  20

  4

  4

  4

  1

  —

  41

  1982

  1

  —

  —

  9

  10

  1

  3

  2

  3

  29

  400

  1975–76

  1983–84

  II (Intermediate)

  29

  33

  IIIN (Skilled non-manual)

  12

  10

  IIIM (Skilled manual)

  28

  25

  IV (Partly skilled)

  9

  9

  V (Unskilled)

  1

  2

  Other and not known

  6

  9

  Total1

  100

  100

  1 Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

  Sources:

  (a) Qualified school leaver returns.

  (b) Scottish young people's survey.

  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will express by sex the percentage of the post-16 years of age school population in each socioeconomic group; and what were the equivalent figures for 10 years ago.

  Mr. John MacKay
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent on education in each of the past 10 years in cash and constant price terms.

  Mr. John MacKay
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Prisoners (Life Sentences)
  Mr. Mates
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons sentenced to life imprisonment or detention during Her Majesty's pleasure are currently serving such sentences in Scotland; and how many were serving such sentences (a) 10, (b) 20 and (c) 30 years ago.

  Mr. Lang
  At 31 December 1986, 414 persons were serving sentences of life imprisonment or detention during Her Majesty's pleasure. The corresponding figure for 31 December 1977 was 341. No comparable figures are available for earlier dates.

  Mr. Mates
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average length of sentence served by prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The time spent in custody by persons released on licence from life sentences is given in appendix D of the report of the Parole Board for Scotland 1985, of which a copy follows:
  401

  Years detained in custody

  Year of release

  6 to 7

  7 to 8

  8 to 9

  9 to 10

  10 to 11

  11 to 12

  12 lo 13

  13 to 14

  Over 14

  Total

  1983

  2

  3

  4

  14

  11

  2

  —

  —

  2

  38

  1984

  1

  —

  1

  5

  6

  1

  —

  —

  1

  15

  1985

  1

  1

  5

  4

  6

  4

  1

  —

  1

  23

  TOTAL

  7

  9

  45

  92

  70

  25

  17

  8

  11

  284

  1 Includes HMP cases.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information his Department has from the general household survey of the percentage of the population in Scotland reporting chronic and acute sickness by social class or socio-economic group.

  Mrs. Currie
  I have been asked to reply.

  By age and socio-economic group—All persons

  Scotland 1985

  Socio-economic group1

  Age

  0–15

  16–44

  45–64

  65 and over

  Total

  (a) Percentage who reported long-standing illness

  Professional

  8

  12

  (3)

  (4)

  13

  Employers and Managers

  11

  15

  31

  38

  21

  Intermediate and junior non-manual

  9

  15

  42

  43

  24

  Skilled manual and own account non-professional

  16

  21

  49

  58

  29

  Semi-skilled manual and personal service

  9

  20

  44

  57

  31

  Unskilled manual

  (2)

  25

  32

  (26)

  36

  All persons

  12

  18

  41

  55

  27

  (b) Percentage who reported limiting long-standing illness

  Professional

  4

  3

  (1)

  (3)

  5

  Employers and Managers

  2

  4

  18

  31

  11

  Intermediate and junior non-manual

  5

  5

  28

  32

  14

  Skilled manual and own account non-professional

  7

  9

  33

  45

  18

  Semi-skilled manual and personal service

  1

  12

  34

  41

  21

  Unskilled manual

  (2)

  18

  23

  (24)

  31

  All persons

  5

  8

  28

  43

  16

  (c) Percentage who reported restricted activity

  Professional

  17

  17

  (3)

  (nil)

  16

  Employers and Managers

  20

  15

  8

  14

  14

  Intermediate and junior non-manual

  9

  10

  11

  13

  11

  Skilled manual and own account non-professional

  13

  8

  12

  14

  11

  Semi-skilled manual and personal service

  9

  6

  17

  17

  11

  Unskilled manual

  (nil)

  18

  8

  (6)

  12

  All persons

  12

  10

  12

  14

  12

  Base = 100 per cent.

  Professional

  53

  69

  22

  5

  149

  Employer and Managers

  81

  138

  89

  42

  350

  Intermediate and junior non-manual

  79

  235

  105

  68

  487

  Skilled manual and own account non-professional

  209

  312

  179

  73

  773

  Semi-skilled manual and personal service

  78

  190

  116

  86

  470

  Unskilled manual

  27

  55

  40

  31

  153

  All persons

  547

  1,070

  568

  320

  2,505

  1 Married women whose husbands were in the household are classified according to their husband's occupation; children under 16 are classified according to their father's occupation. Members of the Armed Forces, persons in inadequately described occupations and all persons who have never worked are not shown as separate categories but are included in the figures for all persons.

  ( ) Indicates the actual numbers not percentages where the base is too small for the calculation of percentages.

  Deportation Orders
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deportation orders were made in Scotland in each year since 1979 to the latest date.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have been asked to reply.
  402
  The table shows the percentages reporting long-standing illness, limiting long-standing illness and restricted activity by age and socio-economic group, for Scotland. The data are taken from the 1985 general household survey.

  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given today to his questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Kidney Transplants
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many kidney transplants have taken place over the past five years; how many failed; how many lasted six months, six months to two years, two years to five years, five years to 10 years and longer than 10 years; and if he will give similar figures for heart and lung transplants and for liver transplants.

  Mrs. Currie
  According to the latest information provided by the United Kingdom Transplant Service (UKTS), the number of cadaveric kidney transplants performed in the United Kingdom within the National Health Service during the five years up to 31 December 1986, was 6,4491. The UKTS has been notified of the failure of 1,669 of these grafts.

  The remaining information for which my hon. Friend asked is not available in exactly the form requested. A detailed analysis has been possible only on 6,191 patients. Of these, a total of 4,528 grafts were known to have survived for at least six months, and 2,631 to have survived for at least two years. These figures cannot be used to calculate accurate survival rates because they exclude grafts performed less than six months and less than two years respectively before the end of the period. Reliable data are not available to calculate graft survival over a five or 10-year period.

  During the same five-year period 518 heart transplants, 99 heart/lung transplants, three lung transplants and 307 liver transplants were carried out. Information on graft survival for these transplants is not available centrally.

  1 Following recent discussions with the UKTS about the source of data quoted in earlier answers and late notifications of transplants performed in recent years, some adjustments have been made to the annual total numbers. The years affected and the revised figures for the numbers of cadaveric transplants performed are:

  Number

  1982

  1,033

  1985

  1,336

  1986

  11,493

  1 Notified to date, additional notifications may necessitate further revision.

  These have been included in the five-year total given.

  St. Paul's Eye Hospital, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the longest time a patient has been kept on the waiting list for treatment at St. Paul's eye hospital, Liverpool.

  Mr. Newton
  I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member the information he seeks. It is not available from the sample information held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the Liverpool district health authority for the information requested.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the reply dated 25 March, Official Report, columns 196–97, concerning class 2 and
  404
  class 4 contributions, whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing (i) the numbers with earnings-profits above the upper level and (ii) his estimate of the distribution by range of income in each case for 1987–88 or for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Major
  Information on the actual number of class 4 contributors who earn more than the upper profits limit is not available but the estimates shown in the table, which have been derived from the Inland Revenue's income survey for the latest available year, give a good indication of the numbers involved. They will contain some overstatement, which is unlikely to be substantial, as they include those self-employed people not liable to pay class 4 contributions because of being over retirement age or of being concurrently employed earners and paying the maximum National Insurance in class 1 and class 2 contributions.

  People with income from self-employment greater than the upper profits limit for class 4 National Insurance contributions (thousands) (United Kingdom) 1984–85

  Ranges of self-employment income:

  Number

  Upper profits limit (£13,000) to £14,999

  57

  £15,000 to£ 19,999

  98

  £20,000 to £24,999

  61

  £25,000 or above

  83

  Total number with incomes above the upper profits limit

  299

  1. The Inland Revenue's income survey is a statistical sample survey of taxpayer's records.

  2. Income is defined net of losses, stock relief and capital allowances.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply dated 25 March, Official Report, column 197–98, concerning the cost of a reduction of one percentage point in national insurance contributions, whether he will publish in the Official Report, a table accounting for (i) the difference between the employers' and employees' contributions in terms of higher earnings or reduced rates and (ii) the figure for the employees' contribution at reduced rates; and if he will add figures for the self-employed.

  Mr. Major
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  Estimated cost of one percentage point reduction in employers' contribution rates in 1987–88

  1,770

  Estimated cost of one percentage point reduction in employees' contribution rates in 1987–88

  1,590

  Difference

  180

  Accounted for by:

  Cut in employers' contributions in respect of earnings above the Upper Earnings Limit

  105

  Cut in employers' contributions in respect of married women who pay the reduced rate: (rate for employees assumed to be static)

  60

  Cut in employers' contributions in respect of employed earners who do not pay primary contributions

  15

  A reduction of one percentage point in the reduced rate paid by married women and widows in 1987–88 would cost about £60 million for the full year in reduced employee contributions.
  405
  Class 2 contributions for the self-employed are not levied on a percentage basis but a reduction of one percentage point in the class 4 (self-employed) contribution rate in 1987–88 would cost about £60 million for the full year.

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. Sims
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance his Department issues to health authorities with regard to procedures to be adopted for the disposal of clinical waste; and whether there have been any amendments to these to guard against the spread of AIDS.

  Mr. Newton
  Health Notice HN(82)22, a copy of which is in the Library, commended to health authorities a Health and Safety Commission code of guidance "The Safe Disposal of Clinical Waste". The procedures in this code, if followed correctly, are sufficient to guard against the spread of AIDS, although the need for further guidance is kept under consideration.

  NHS (Staff Shortages)
  Mr. Steel
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing the most recent total expenditures by each health authority in England and Wales on agency nursing to fill staff shortages.

  Mr. Newton
  The figures for English authorities were given in my reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 17 December 1986, at columns 574–78. These provisional figures are now confirmed. Expenditure by Welsh authorities is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Irradiated Food
  Mr. Aitken
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is yet in a position to report on the outcome of his consideration of the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods report on irradiated food.

  Mrs. Currie
  No. The Advisory Committee has only recently given Health and Agriculture Ministers its further advice in the light of comments made on its original report. Ministers are now considering the report.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation paid for by his Department in (a) Ilford, North, (b) Ilford, South, (c) Barking and (d) Dagenham; and what is the cost in each case over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Major
  I regret that the information requested is not collected by individual local offices and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Allowances
  Mr. Hannam
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people were in receipt of (a) mobility allowance, (b) war pensioners' mobility supplement, (c) attendance allowance at the lower rate, (d) attendance allowance at the higher rate, (e) invalid care allowance and (f) severe disablement allowance at the latest date for which figures are available.
  406
  Mr. Major
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Benefit

  Latest date for which figures are available

  Number of recipients

  Mobility allowance

  April 1987

  474,000

  War pensioners mobility supplement

  December 1986

  113,000

  Attendance allowance

  Lower rate

  March 1986

  1348,000

  Higher rate

  March 1986

  1237,000

  Invalid care allowance

  March 1987

  56,000

  Severe disablement allowance

  April 1986

  2261,000

  1 Estimate.

  2 Provisional estimate.

  Brighton General Hospital
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what new facilities have been added to the Brighton general hospital in each of the last eight years; and what has been the cost in both capital and revenue terms;

  (2) what is the estimated site value of Brighton general hospital; and what has been the annual total revenue and capital expenditure on the hospital for each of the last 10 years;

  (3) how many students are trained in both graduate and post graduate studies in the Brighton general hospital;

  (4) how many (a) nursing staff, (b) medical staff, (c) auxilliary care staff, (d) catering staff, (e) cleaners and support staff and (f) technical support staff have been employed in the Brighton general hospital for each of the last three years;

  (5) what plans exist for repair and maintenance work and for development of the Brighton general hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member the information he seeks. Information at this level of detail is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the Brighton health authority for the information requested.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when Brighton general hospital was first opened; how many beds are currently open in the hospital; and what is the breakdown of bed usage by medical care provided.

  Mrs. Currie
  I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member full and current information in the form requested. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the Brighton health authority for the information he seeks.

  Financial Management Initiative
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the effect on his Department of the financial management initiative.

  Mr. Fowler
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.

  Benefits (Appeals)
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, what is (a) the average and (b) the longest time for (i) an appeal against an adjudication officer's decision

  407
  to be heard by a social security appeal tribunal and (ii) the results of such an appeal to be made known to the appellant, in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lyell
  The most recent figures available are for the quarter ended 30 September 1986 when the average time taken for an appeal to be heard in Scotland was 14·6 weeks. Of the appeals heard in the same quarter, the longest time taken for one to be heard was 151·1 weeks. The delay was a result of requests by the claimant for further time to obtain evidence in support of the appeal. Information on the longest time taken for an appeal to be heard where the actual hearing occurred in a quarter prior to quarter ended 30 September 1986 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Statistics on the length of time taken to advise an appellant of the results of an appeal to a social security appeal tribunal are not available and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Council for Advancement of Communication for Deaf People
  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the support given by his Department to the Council for Advancement of Communication for Deaf People in each of the last three years and specify what part of each sum has been given specifically for training and administrative expenses.

  Mr. Major
  In each of the last three years we have granted the council a total of £40,000 as a contribution towards central administration expenses.

  Prison Visits (Travel Passes)
  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the number of travel passes given to applicants living in Scotland to allow visits to relatives in prison in Scotland and England, respectively, for the latest convenient period for which figures are available and the total cost to his Department of such passes in the same period.

  Mr. Lyell
  During the period 1 March 1987 to 31 March 1987 the Department issued 349 travel warrants to applicants living in Scotland; 301 were for visits to Scottish prisons and 48 to English prisons. The total value of the warrants was £6,720·15.

  Maternity Payments
  Mrs. Renée Short
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in the Wolverhampton, North-East constituency claimed maternity grant in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Major
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  The Wolverhampton, North-East constituency is covered by the Department's local offices at Wolverhampton, North and Wolverhampton, South although their boundaries are not conterminous with the constituency. The numbers of claims for maternity grant received at these two offices during the 1986 calendar year were as follows:
  408

  Number

  Wolverhampton, North

  2,066

  Wolverhampton, South

  2,072

  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in (a) Orkney and (b) Shetland claimed the maternity grant in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Major
  The numbers of claims for maternity grant received during the 1986 calendar year at the Department's local offices at Kirkwall and Lerwick, which cover the constituency, were 216 and 356 respectively.

  Unemployed People (Dependants)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the numbers dependent on unemployed persons in receipt of unemployment benefit or supplementary benefit; and if he will identify how many are (a) spouses, (b) children under 16 years and (c) children over 16 years.

  Mr. Lyell
  The latest available information is given in the table:

  Number of Dependants (000s)

  Adult

  Under 19 years

  Claimant in receipt of Unemployment benefit only

  175·7

  n.a.

  Unemployment benefit and Supplementary benefit

  2135

  3209

  Supplementary benefit only

  2581

  3916

  1 As at November 1986. Figure includes persons having care of claimant's child as well as spouse.

  2 Estimate as at February 1986. Figures are for partners.

  3 Estimate as at February 1986. No age breakdown of the numbers of children available.

  West Midlands RHA (Food Contracts)
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services which firms hold contracts to supply food to the West Midlands regional health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  West Midlands regional health authority does not have any formal contracts for food items, but has arranged many purchasing agreements covering a comprehensive range of foodstuffs and related items. Individual hospital locations call off their own specific needs as required from companies with whom such arrangements have been made.

  NHS (Charges)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the revenue from National Health Service charges in each year until 1990; and adopting Government assumptions about inflation, what prescription charges will be in each year until 1990.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is:

  £million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Estimated NHS charge revenue (England)

  487

  520

  550

  409
  It would be inappropriate to engage in speculative calculations about the level of prescription charges in future years, since there is no automatic presumption that they will be increased in line with general inflation, and no decisions about their future levels have been taken.

  Overseas Health Services
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list visits, showing at what ministerial or official level, which have taken place to (a) France, (b) New Zealand, (c) the United States of America and (d) Australia since 1983 to examine aspects of their health services;

  (2) what consideration has been given to, and what studies have taken place into, aspects of health service management or practice in (i) France, (ii) New Zealand, (iii) the United States of America and (iv) Australia since June 1983.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let the hon. Member have the information that is available as soon as possible.

  Benefits
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate, for each region, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole of (a) the numbers claiming supplementary benefit, (b) the numbers dependent on claims for suppplementary benefit, (c) the numbers claiming housing benefit, and (d) the numbers dependent on claims for housing benefit.

  Mr. Lyell
  I shall let the hon Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will uprate the proposed new basic benefit levels and premium levels contained in the technical appendix of his "Social Security Reform" White Paper (a) to April 1987 levels and prices and (b) taking into account the Treasury assumptions for price rises in 1987–88, at April 1988 levels and prices; and if he will estimate the difference between premium payments for each of the categories of beneficiary.

  Mr. Major
  The rates given in the technical annex to the White Paper were illustrative only, and a simple scaling of the figures in line with an assumed movement in prices would he misleading, the actual rates to be used in April 1988 will be decided nearer the time in the light of all the information then available.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons previously registering as unemployed and claiming unemployment or supplementary benefit have, in the last 12 months been transferred to sickness benefit claims.

  Mr. Lyell
  I shall let the hon Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to change the rules governing the payment of suppplementary benefit to women who have received compensation for having been raped.

  Mr. Major
  Payments made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to victims of rape are treated for 410
  supplementary benefit purposes in the same way as any other payment of compensation for personal or criminal injury. They can be disregarded for up to two years, or even longer where it is considered reasonable to do so, if the money is put into a trust fund. They are then subject to the normal capital rules: benefit is not payable if a person has more than £3,000 capital.

  We have no immediate plans to change this, but we are proposing changes in the income support scheme, which replaces supplementary benefit from April 1988, which would be beneficial to anyone receiving compensation for criminal injury. The two-year disregard of money put into a trust fund will be allowed automatically. In addition, the capital limit will be doubled from £3,000 to £6,000, but an income will be assumed for each band of £250 between £3,000 and £6,000. There must, however, be a limit to the value of capital that can be disregarded in an income-related benefit scheme, and we consider that these proposals strike a reasonable balance between the aims. of a scheme that provides compensation from public funds and an income replacement scheme.

  Dr. McDonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide estimates of the numbers of (a) family income supplement recipients and (b) standard housing benefit recipients by earnings distribution using the following ranges of gross weekly earnings: (i) below £80, (ii) £80 to £90, (iii) £90 to £100, (iv) £100 to £110, (v) £110 to £120 and (vi) above £120; and if he will indicate the average amount of benefit paid to those falling within each of these ranges.

  Mr. Major
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 April 1987. c. 656]: The following table gives the information for family income supplement recipients, except that it is not possible to give a breakdown of weekly earnings above £90.

  Analysis of FIS families by gross earnings1 of head—April 1986— Great Britain

  Gross earnings of head

  Number of families in receipt of FIS

  Average payment of FIS

  Below £80

  115,000

  18·20

  £80 to £89·99

  34,000

  8·70

  £90 and above

  51,000

  6·10

  All

  200,000

  13·50

  1 Earnings include profits from self-employment and relate to the date of FIS claim.

  I regret that it is not possible to provide reliable figures for housing benefit recipients in work.

  Health Expenditure (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) 2 April, Official Report, column 1221, he will tabulate in the Official Report, for each of the London region health authorities and health districts, respectively, the expenditure of each in real terms in 1979 and in 1986 showing the percentage increase or decrease stating or using the same statistical criteria.

  Mr. Newton
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Pensions and Benefits
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will express (a) the basic pension and

  411
  (b) the single person's supplementary benefit level if unemployed as a percentage of average earnings in (i) 1957, (ii) 1979 and (iii) 1987.

  Mr. Major
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the value at 1987 prices and as

  Great Britain

  £ million at 1987–88 prices

  1979–80

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Amount

  Percentage share of Fund income

  Amount

  Percentage share of Fund income

  Amount

  Percentage share of Fund income

  Employers Contributions

  10,750

  46·5

  11,550

  44·5

  11,800

  45

  Treasury Supplement

  4,050

  17·5

  2,500

  9·5

  2,030

  7·5

  Contribution rates and the size of the Treasury supplement are determined annually in the light of circumstances at the time. The Government do not make forward estimates of the individual elements of income to the national insurance fund.

  Children's Allowances
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to maintain the real value of all children's allowances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  We have no plans to alter the existing flexible arrangements for the uprating of children's allowances. The main children's allowances were increased in line with the percentage increase in the appropriate index from 6 April, demonstrating the Government's commitment to continuing support for families with children.

  AIDS
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will authorise compensation for haemophiliacs who have contracted AIDS from infected factor VIII; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 15 January, at column 302.

  Leigham Clinic
  Mr. William Shelton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services who were the representatives of the proprietors of the Leigham Clinic in Leigham Court road, Streatham who met officials of his Department on 2 August 1985, in connection with alleged late abortions.

  Mr. Newton
  I suggest that my hon. Friend approach the proprietors direct.

  Mr. William Shelton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish the dates when his officials
  412
  a percentage of the total of (a) Government contributions and (b) employers' contributions to the national insurance fund in 1979 and 1986; and what is his estimate of these contributions for each year until 1990, using Treasury assumptions.

  Mr. Major
  Employers' contributions and the Treasury supplement to the national insurance fund in 1979–80, 1986–87 and 1987–88 (at 1987–88 prices), are as follows :

  have inspected the Leigham Clinic in Leigham Court road, Streatham, during the last five years in connection with the Abortion Act.

  Mr. Newton
  During the last five years officials have inspected the Leigham Clinic in connection with the Abortion Act on the following dates:

  11 November 1982

  17 May 1983

  6 October 1983

  15 February 1984

  1 November 1984

  6 August 1985

  14 October 1985

  1 May 1986

  18 November 1986

  12 February 1987

  Nurses and Midwives (Pay)
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many letters he has received in support of the full recommended pay award to nurses and midwives to be proposed by the review body; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department has received some 90 letters on this point.

  Maternity Units
  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will indicate the number of general practitioner maternity units which have closed since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  The numbers of National Health Service hospital general practitioner maternity units in 1979 and 1985 were 256 and 214 respectively.

  Attendance Allowance Board
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to begin publishing the guidance and instructions of the Attendance Allowance Board.

  Mr. Major
  The Attendance Allowance Board intends to publish in the summer a full revision of the handbook for its delegated medical practitioners.

  Hip Operations
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the percentage of patients in the North West Thames region who in 1980 waited for more than a year for a hip operation; and what was the comparable percentage of patients waiting for this period of time in 1985.

  Mr. Newton
  I am sorry I cannot give my hon. Friend the information he seeks. It is not available from the sample information held centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to write to the chairman of the North West Thames regional health authority for the information requested.

  Nurses
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report the number of qualified state enrolled nurses and of qualified state registered nurses employed by the National Health Service, for each year since 1974.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 February 1987, c. 236]: The table shows all enrolled nurses and registered nurses and midwives working in National Health Service hospitals and in primary health care in England, from September 1974 to September 1985 inclusive (the latest date for which such detail is available).

  Registered Nurses and Midwives, and Enrolled Nurses employed by the National Health Service in Hospitals and in primary health care1 England 1974–1985

  Whole-time equivalents2

  Staff in post at 30 September

  Registered Nurses and Midwives

  Enrolled Nurses

  1974

  113,100

  42,900

  1975

  119,500

  47,300

  1976

  123,600

  50,600

  1977

  126,800

  53,800

  1978

  129,500

  56,500

  1979

  132,200

  57,600

  1980

  135,600

  60,300

  1981

  143,200

  65,700

  1982

  147,600

  68,400

  1983

  149,600

  69,900

  1984

  152,500

  71,100

  1985

  157,700

  72,300

  Source: DHSS Annual Census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  1 Excludes staff in administrative and centrally based services. Not adjusted for reduction in nurses' working hours in 1980 from 40 to 37·5 hours per week or for increases in bank holiday entitlements in 1977 and 1978.

  2 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest 100 whole-time equivalents.

  Kidney Dialysis
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients are currently undergoing kidney dialysis treatment on Merseyside; how many patients are on the waiting list; and what is the longest period of time which has elapsed since any of the outstanding cases were referred for dialysis treatment.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 25 March 1987, c. 210]: Information in the form requested is not available centrally. The latest data available to the Department are supplied by the European Dialysis and Transplant Association. These show that at the end of December 1985
  414
  there were 229 patients on haemodialysis in the Mersey region. Currently, all demand for dialysis treatment in the region is being met and the regional health authority expects to keep pace with that demand in the future.

  Abortions
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the numbers of legal abortions performed in England and Wales on women resident in each health and social services board area in Northern Ireland in 1984, 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 108]: The table shows the information which is available without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Number of notifications of legal abortions carried out in England and Wales, to residents of Northern Ireland by County and/or County Borough1 1984–86

  County/County Borough1 of usual residence

  1984

  1985

  21986

  Antrim

  330

  369

  423

  Armagh

  101

  113

  89

  Down

  246

  296

  323

  Fermanagh

  43

  63

  45

  Londonderry and Londonderry County Borough

  150

  155

  166

  Tyrone

  147

  125

  135

  Belfast County Borough

  500

  505

  536

  Ulster or Northern Ireland not otherwise specified

  13

  11

  8

  Total

  1,530

  1,637

  1,725

  1 Pre-1974 boundaries.

  2Includes notifications received by end of February 1987— provisional.

  Board-and-Lodging Changes
  Mr. Norris
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will be changing the arrangements for paying benefit to people in lodgings following the issue of the consultative document "Help with Board and Lodging Charges for People on Low Incomes"; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  The consultative document proposed that from April 1988 unemployed people in lodgings should be eligible for housing benefit to meet their accommodation costs and income support for their other needs. This change would replace existing provision whereby supplementary benefit meets both housing and living costs.

  Over 170 responses were received. There was widespread acceptance of the principle that any differences between benefits payable to boarders not in work and other claimants should be based on actual differences in their circumstances. Most who commented recognised that change on the lines proposed was logical but a number of practical concerns were raised. The local authority associations, in particular, argued strongly that the change should not be made in April 1988 when local authorities will be fully occupied in starting to administer the new housing benefit scheme.

  The Government accept the force of this argument, and have decided to implement the change from April 1989, one year later than originally proposed. In the run-up to

  415
  the new system, detailed arrangements for the transition will be worked out with local authorities, especially those in areas with high concentrations of boarder claimants. Discussions will also continue with local authority and other interests on the position of boarders in supported lodging schemes, on whose behalf it has been argued that similar considerations arise to those affecting hostels. As indicated in the consultative document, the Government intend to defer a final decision on arrangements for hostels in order to set them in the context of the current work on related aspects of community care. The position of people in supported lodgings will also be considered in this context.

  There is clear research evidence that the lifestyle and circumstances of boarders are close to those of the far larger number living in other multiply occupied dwellings. Paying higher rates of income support to some or all boarders, as some have suggested, would simply perpetuate the distortions our proposals are designed to rectify. The Government have therefore decided that, from April 1989, the generality of people not in work in ordinary board and lodgings should qualify for income
  416
  support and housing benefit in the same way as everyone else. For ease of administration and certainty for claimants, deductions from housing benefit in respect of meals provided will be fixed at standard rates. This is the course preferred by local authorities. On the basis of current information about food costs, the deduction for breakfasts only would be of the order of £1, and for full board £11·50.

  During the interim period from April 1988, boarders will continue to receive benefit on broadly the same lines as now with some adjustments to align these provisions with the new structure of income support. Time limits will continue to apply to benefit for younger boarders until the new system is introduced.

  The Government remain committed to provision for boarders which will enable real needs to be met while keeping expenditure under control and curbing abuse. The system to be introduced from April 1989 will not only achieve those ends, but remove a source of distortion in the housing market and secure equity between boarders in and out of work, and income support claimants in all types of tenure.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Animals (Scotland) Act,

Broadcasting Act,

Gaming (Amendment) Act,

Petroleum Act,

Minors' Contracts Act,

Recognition of Trusts Act,

Reverter of Sites Act,

Exeter City Council Act.

Metropolitan Police Area: Crime Rate
11.6 a.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions can be drawn from the latest figures released regarding the rate of crime in the Metropolitan Police area, and what further action the Government propose to take regarding this problem.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, in 1986 recorded crime in the Metropolitan Police district increased by less than the national average. We have increased the resources available to the Metropolitan Police; decisions about the operational use of these resources are the responsibility of the commissioner, not the Government. My right honourable friend has endorsed the commissioner's strategy for 1987 with its continued emphasis on crime prevention and crimes which cause particular public concern, such as robbery and burglary.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. But would he not agree that though the majority of offences are committed, as I understand it, by young people below working age, nevertheless Sir Kenneth Newman in his report indicated that unemployment is a major factor in the steady and substantial increase in the crime rate in the metropolitan area? Does it not seem strange therefore that the Minister's right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place claimed that the Government's strategy regarding crime was actually succeeding? Does it not seem odd that something that is against the public interest and increasing is described
1112
as a success, when, obviously, the indication is that more needs to be done?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, this Government have devoted considerable extra resources to the Metropolitan Police in order to combat the crime rate. But extensive research has not shown any direct link between levels of crime and those of unemployment. In the past 30 years, recorded crime has risen but employment levels have varied.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, does the amount of reported crime necessarily involve any increase in the amount of crime committed?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, of course it is difficult to say that there is any exact relationship between the two; but there may be a greater number of smaller crimes being reported that previously were not.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many neighbourhood watch schemes are now in existence within the Metropolitan area?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend the exact number, but I can say that the Home Secretary particularly welcomes the continued emphasis that the commissioner has given to crime prevention which includes neighbourhood watch schemes. I believe that there are over 6,000 schemes in operation.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, if the police are to be successful—I am sure that is what everybody wants—surely they deserve and have the right to expect the full-hearted co-operation of all the local boroughs. Instead of that, in the inner London area there are a number of people who spend their whole time attacking, sneering, calling the police everything they can—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Mellish: It really is a deplorable example of lack of co-operation when the police are crying out for help and not criticism.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships concur that all right-thinking people will agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, might not it seem counter-productive, as was shown in the first question, if this grievous problem were to be used in order to put forward rabid party political points instead of being approached on a basis of unity that the damage flowing from it deserves?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I agree. Having said that the Government are very concerned about the rise in crime, we are devoting considerable resources to deal with it.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, reverting to the original supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is it not a fact that for several years more than half the indictable offences in the metropolitan

1113
area have been committed by young people under the age of 21? Has the Minister seen an internal Metropolitan Police report quoted in the Independent newspaper last Monday which, having made the point that unemployment among the young has a direct influence on crime, goes on to say:
"The process of the political, social and economic marginalisation"—
"alienation", I believe, would be a happier word—
"of the young unemployed removes them from the network of informal social control".
Is it not in that area that we should be looking for an answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asks about unemployment and crime, and I have answered that question. I believe that there is a high risk of crime in inner city areas and the Government are tackling this problem. They are tackling it through urban renewal and a number of programmes including the urban programme, the priority estates project, the community programme and the inner cities initiative.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, has my noble friend the Minister some sympathy with the police who do the best they can to prevent crime but whose efforts are diverted by massive organised demonstrations of public disorder?
Lord Beaverbrook: Of course, my Lords, where police resources are needlessly tied up in dealing with these sorts of things, then they are not on crime prevention duties.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it not the case that debates and discussions in this House show that we, on this side of the House, fully support the actions and attempts of the police to deal with crime? What is lacking is particularity about crime prevention, the degree of success it has accomplished and the results in regard to detection and prevention.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I welcome the assurances from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. I am sure that all your Lordships support the police in doing the very best they can. But it is not just a matter of throwing money at the problem; it is not just a matter of throwing manpower at the problem. It is a matter of careful planning. I believe that the commissioner is undertaking a number of initiatives to try to solve the difficulties.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my questions. For example, what has happened in the matter of the detection of crime? What particular steps are now being taken in the field of crime prevention over and above what has been done before?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I have already mentioned the neighbourhood watch schemes. Many of your Lordships will know that we have undertaken a programme of civilianisation of roles within the Metropolitan Police in order to release more officers
1114
for crime detection and crime prevention. We also greatly welcome the progress which the commissioner has made in regard to the reorganisation of the force. This is now nearing completion. Some 200 officers are shortly to be released for operational duties.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the purpose of my Question was not in any way to criticise the police, because they have my total support? I, like the rest of your Lordships, have no time at all for people in local authorities who seem to find some pleasure in obstructing the police in their duties. But the fact is that Sir Kenneth Newman is not the first police chief, a specialist in his job, who has drawn attention to the fact that he believes unemployment to be a contributory factor in the deteriorating situation. Is it not about time that the Government stopped saying that it is not?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I have said that there is no direct link. We believe that problems in the inner cities have contributed to crime; but I am quite sure that the commissioner and his force will continue to do the very best they can both in detecting and in preventing crime.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it is all very well for the Minister to say that there is no direct link. Research findings may not have established it; but common sense and knowledge of what young men between the ages of 16 and 21 are like surely tell him that if those young men have nothing to do and have no money they will get into trouble.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I think it would be quite unreasonable to say that there is any direct link, whether people are in work or out of work, as to whether they commit crimes.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is it not insulting to those who are unemployed to suggest that they are more likely to resort to crime? I consider it thoroughly offensive to a large proportion of our public.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I would not disagree with the noble Viscount.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that unemployment makes it more difficult for those on the Bench—any Bench—to deal with crime? In the old days one could say to these young people in particular, "If you find yourself a job and keep out of trouble, I will defer sentence for six months or put you on probation", and so on. Today if you say that from the Bench, they just laugh at you because they know that jobs are very difficult to find.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, of course there are difficulties for magistrates, but I cannot believe that there is any excuse for crime.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact that in the metropolitan area, to which this Question refers—
Lord Denham: My Lords, we have had 10 minutes now on this Question and we have two more Questions. I think the House may feel that we should go on to the next one.

Ruskin College: Expenditure
11.16 a.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total cost this year to public funds of Ruskin College, Oxford.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, just over £674,000 has been allocated to the college for capital and recurrent expenditure during the 1986–87 academic year. Costs of £365,000 are likely to be incurred on adult education state awards for students studying at Ruskin during the same period.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for those interesting figures, is she satisfied that the public generally get full value for that money?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government continue to recognise that the provision of long-term residential education for adults by colleges such as Ruskin complements the range of educational opportunities available for adults in the country, and the education offered by the college is regarded generally as sound.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, as an ex-student of Toynbee Hall and having had a past association with Ruskin College, may I ask the Minister whether she would not agree that if it were not for institutions of this kind the less fortunate members of society would have been deprived of a higher form of education?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, Ruskin certainly has a place in the education system.

Radio Broadcasting Proposals
11.18 a.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that their proposals for the future of radio broadcasting will not have adverse effects on the existing arrangements.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Government believe that the options discussed in the recent Green Paper offer the prospect of significant benefits for listeners, opening up opportunities for an increased range and diversity of services, while at the same time sustaining the public service broadcasting role of the BBC. Both the BBC and the IBA have welcomed the balance which we have proposed to strike.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask him, in reference to the Green Paper, Cmnd. 92, whether it will not bring
1116
excessive competition between radio broadcasters and in particular allow those who have the power to broadcast over the area enjoyed by community broadcasters? Is that really desirable?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. In fact there are no community radio stations existing at the moment in this country. In regard to independent local radio, we believe that some of the proposals contained in our consultative Green Paper will help independent local radio companies by raising the profile of radio as an advertising medium and thus perhaps giving the industry a larger slice of the advertising cake.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, although I appreciate that the period for consultation is still running, can the noble Lord give us an indication as to how long after the end of the consultation period it will be before the Government give their proposals, particularly as to the kind of legislation that they will propose to give effect to some of the recommendations in the Green Paper?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the consultation period expires on 30th June this year. It will be as soon as possible after that, taking into account all the representations, that the Government will wish to bring forward further proposals.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I appreciate that the consultation period has not yet come to an end, and I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate the Green Paper in this House. But can the noble Lord give us some idea of how a greatly extended system, as proposed in the Green Paper, which covers national, local and community stations, will be financed in practice? This is not covered—it is just glanced at in the Green Paper—and there is considerable worry about the financing of these new proposals.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the primary source of finance for any new radio stations, or more radio stations, will be advertising revenues and perhaps other types of revenues, such as subscriptions, or, where local people wish to have a specific service, they might well put together some sort of community contribution to a station. But we see the opportunities for independent radio becoming greater because the stations will be operating under a lighter and less costly regime.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a number of the smaller areas with independent local radio now are showing signs of financial difficulty because their advertising revenues are not sufficient to pay their way? If he spreads the butter even thinner on the bread, will he not put a number of these valuable stations which are giving a very useful service locally out of existence?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as I have said, we believe that if we can reduce the cost structure for independent local radio the stations will be more viable than possibly they are at the moment.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the independent local radio stations are convinced that if national commercial radio is introduced they will suffer a very severe reduction of their national advertising? While many of the bigger stations will be able to recoup that loss by bidding for the franchise of the new national commercial stations, many of the smaller local radio stations which now produce a very valuable local service are convinced that, if the national commercial stations go ahead, they will face bankruptcy.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as I have already said, the Government believe that a new national independent station could well improve the whole industry. But it is the Government's intention to increase the number of viable radio stations and not to decrease them. I give that assurance to my noble friend.

Telemessage Service
11.23 a.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, given that the telemessage service is available only to individuals who have a telephone number of their own, they will persuade the Post Office and British Telecom that telemessages should be accepted at post offices.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, this is entirely a commercial matter for the boards of the Post Office and British Telecom. But I understand that the Post Office would be prepared to offer British Telecom's telemessage service over post office counters. It is for the Post Office and British Telecom to agree suitable terms.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I should like to inquire whether the Government have it in mind to take any steps to render this very useful service available to the man in the street.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, it is for British Telecom to look at this matter, not the Government, and for it to make a judgment on the basis of commercial viability. But I shall remind the chairman of British Telecom of my noble friend's concern in this matter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, would the noble Lord not accept that the Government, which after all still have nearly half of the equity of British Telecom, are in a perfect position to instruct British Telecom to spend a minuscule part of the monopoly profits that it makes on the humanitarian service which the noble Lord asks about?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, in fact British Telecom operates under its licence. It is a profitable
1118
organisation—all your Lordships will be aware of that—but there are very great demands for future growth to be financed. It is run as a commercial company, of course with full regard to its licence conditions. But the Government have said that they will not interfere.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, does the Minister not think that perhaps a nod would be as good as a wink to a blind horse, and could he send a note of these exchanges to British Telecom and tell it to consider them?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I have already assured my noble friend that I shall bring this matter to the attention of the chairman of British Telecom.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will the noble Lord be very careful not to follow the suggestion of various noble Lords that the Government should interfere and instruct various large organisations? Did we not get rid of nationalisation exactly to prevent that?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, British Telecom is run by its board, not by the Government.

Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill
11.26 a.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS SEROTA in the Chair.]
Clause 16 [Registration appeals]:
[Amendments Nos. 202 and 203 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 14, line 38, leave out from ("have") to end of line 39 and insert ("allowed the request")
The noble Lord said: This amendment—
Lord Tordoff: I wonder whether I may draw attention to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is trying to catch our eye.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I please raise a question of grouping? Would it not save a considerable amount of time, and be convenient, to take with the grouping of Amendments Nos. 257A, 258, 259 and 261 also Amendment No. 257 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and Amendment No. 260 in the name of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy? All the same points arise. It would save time. It is only a suggestion.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I should not mind if we adjourned the Committee for a quarter of an hour to look at that point.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps the best thing to do is to discuss it when we get to the point. The first amendment is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and if he agrees I am perfectly happy.
Lord Ross of Marnock: This is quite an important point. One of the troubles about this Bill is that it is so hasty. The Government want it to be efficient, and that may well mean cutting corners to the detriment of fairness to those who have to pay these unfair community charges and the like. Amendment No. 204 covers the case where there is an appeal against a decision by the community charges registration officer. If a reply does not reach the person who is appealing, after a certain time the request is deemed to be refused, but I think it should be the other way around. The person who has to respond to the payer is the community charges registration officer, and if he does not reply within a certain time it should be conceded that he has allowed the request.
There is already sufficient unfairness to the person involved, without giving this strange power to the community charges registration officer. He need not reply to a letter. If he has not replied to a letter, the person who is appealing must assume that the appeal has been refused. After that he can go to the sheriff. Surely it can be settled in a fairer way: if he does not reply to the letter, he is allowed the appeal. I beg to move.
11.30 a.m.
Lord Glenarthur: As described by the noble Lord, the amendment would turn the presumption contained in the clause around and deem it that the registration officer had allowed the request. That would not of itself achieve anything, since unless a change were made in the entry the register would remain in its original condition and the liability of the individual for the charge would be governed accordingly. Even if it were thought attractive to use the mechanism to provide an incentive to registration officers to give their determination promptly, I do not think that the approach which the amendment suggests will work. The logic of the approach which provides for appeal against a deemed refusal is therefore perfectly correct.
I also believe that there is no unfairness in the procedures in the Bill as it stands. There is no suggestion that registration officers will routinely fail to give determinations so as to force people to exercise their rights of appeal. When they are satisfied that they have the available facts upon which to make a decision, they will do so and notify the individual, who, if it is agreed, can then take an appeal. To have no provisions at all for what is to happen in the rare cases where the registration officer fails to give a decision would be a clear weakness in the procedures. As I have explained, a deemed acceptance would not work, so provision for a deemed refusal, which is well established in matters of this sort, seems to be the logical and sensible approach.
The Earl of Perth: I have listened to the reply of the Minister. It seems to me that the paragraph encourages registration officers not to answer. I appreciate the point which the Minister has made. However, I wonder whether he will look into providing some sort of mechanism to ensure that officers do answer. The Minister says, "Ordinary people will do so". However, I have often found that it is difficult to get answers out of government departments.
Lord Grimond: I should like to support what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. It seems to me highly desirable that such officers should reply and that they may be encouraged not to do so. Does the Minister expect that in the normal case the officer concerned will not only reply but will also give some reason for his decision? If he is not to reply, then the person who has objected will have no knowledge, as I understand it, of the reasons for the refusal. Surely the normal procedure would be for the officer to give a reason. Without such a reason, it will be difficult for the person in question to pursue the appeal. I therefore ask the Minister to look again at the matter and see whether natural justice does not mean that it should be turned the other way round so that if the person objecting gets no answers, it should be taken that the objection is accepted.
Lord Glenarthur: I hear what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, have said. However, it seems to me that the amendment would result in an illogicality because the register cannot be changed until the registration officer has changed it. Therefore the fact that he is deemed to have allowed the request for a change does not seem to me to have any particular meaning. The amendment will presumably provide the opportunity for a debate on the fairness of the appeal procedures.
I believe that what we have set out not only has precedents but is also precisely the right way to deal with the problem. If the arguments of the noble Earl, which I shall certainly study, lead me to believe otherwise, then I shall see what I can do. However, I do not think that his argument holds water. Knowledge would presumably be made available normally, which seems to be the burden of the remarks of the noble Lord. But to turn it round in the way that the amendment suggests would not provide anything other than an illogicality for which there are no other precedents.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My noble friend is absolutely right on the logic of the structure of the Bill. This amendment would simply introduce an element which conflicts with other elements in the Bill. He is right about that, and I do not presume to argue with him. However, I am bound to say that I am a bit unhappy about the merits of the matter. The concept that if a public officer fails in his duty the person who has applied for the exercise of his powers shall be deemed to have had the application refused is not a very attractive principle.
There is the further point, which I think was made by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that, if the person concerned desires to exercise his right of appeal, it will be difficult to do so in practice if he does not know the

1121
grounds on which the application was refused. If he is given the grounds of refusal, then he can argue that those grounds are inadequate or unsound. If he is given only the failure to answer a letter, it is not to his advantage. I hope that my noble friend will appreciate that there is a point to be made on the merits here. He is absolutely right on the technicalities. But there is a point on the merits and many of us have a lot of sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Grimond.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to my noble friend. His explanation has helped me to understand the point which I perhaps did not take when the noble Earl first made it. Perhaps I can examine the matter and see whether there is anything which can be done or whether we are getting ourselves in a muddle. I cannot give an undertaking that that is the case. But I shall examine with great care what has been said.
The Earl of Selkirk: Perhaps I may make two short points. First, how does one know that the letter has been received? There are letters which go astray, even with our wonderful Post Office. Secondly, should there not be a time period when one may make an assumption that the terms of this particular subsection have been fulfilled?
Lord Glenarthur: I understand that the provisions here follow precedents in other Acts, notably planning Acts. Presumably the same reasons which the noble Earl suggested would apply to the documents sent in relation to them. Apparently, so far as concerns planning Acts, if the planning authorities fail to decide a planning application, they are deemed to have refused it. It may be that it would be wrong to couple planning Acts and this particular Bill together. I shall study what has been said and take on board the point made by my noble friend.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Perhaps we can distinguish between planning and people. This Bill refers to people and not to those applying for planning permission. To that extent, I ask the Minister to examine the whole of paragraph (b), which really is a let-out for the registration officer if he has failed to carry out his duty within the prescribed time. For myself, if I may use the dreadful jargon of computer people, I ask the Minister to make the Bill a bit more user-friendly.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I can look at that in the light of what I have said as regards looking at the amendment as a whole. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asked about time periods. The time limit is described under Clause 16(2)(b). It will probably be a month. At any rate, I hope that the Committee will agree that I should take that matter away, as well as the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think the Minister appreciates the sense of the Committee. The technicalities may be such as suit the business. This very much suits the registration officer. On the other
1122
hand, it is obviously unfair and so many things can go wrong. This is not like planning. Planning is very often done by professional people who know what is what. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, this is about people, and some of them will be very simple people. Not only that, but the change that a person is requesting the registration officer to make may involve a considerable sum of money from an ordinary person's point of view. He may be charged thereafter with default for up to three years.
It is not good enough to have this rather comfortable position for the registration officer and a potentially dangerous one for the person who requests the registration officer to make or amend an entry in the register. However, I gratefully accept the assurance that has been given by the Minister that he will look at it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 204A not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Duties in relation to registration]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 15, line 23, after ("is") insert ("reasonably")
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. We are dealing with a man who is fairly experienced in the business of getting information from people. The registration officer—I wish he could be called something else because he is also the assessor, the valuer and the electoral registration officer in Scotland—has to draw up the register; he can do so only by getting information in respect of the people in the area, probably household by household. He has to find information. Clause 17(1) says:
"The general duty of the registration officer… shall include the duty to take all reasonable steps to obtain such information as is required by him".
People can ask unreasonable questions when they are going to houses canvassing in this way. This is how it is done. Somebody is sent out to query a response. First of all he must find who in the household is responsible and then ask the questions. I believe that the questions should be reasonable and that reasonable steps should be taken. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I certainly appreciate the noble Lord's concern that unless the registration officer's actions are subject to precise control, he might be tempted to make over-zealous inquiries in obtaining information for registration purposes. I do not think the amendment is entirely necessary, but in the light of the noble Lord's explanation I am perfectly happy to accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 15, line 26, leave out ("assessor or electoral")
The noble Lord said: I shall just mention who the registration officer is. He is the assessor; he is the

1123
electoral registration officer. And here the Bill says:
"The registration officer shall for the purpose of discharging his functions under this Act have access to and the use of any information which the assessor"—
That is himself—
"or electoral registration officer"—
That, again, is himself—
"for the area which comprises or includes the registration area of the registration officer may have acquired in connection with any of his functions".
There is a man who talks to himself. Many people have been doing it in politics for years. I think the Government might have found some other way of doing this. I just want an explanation. I beg to move.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I can give the noble Lord the explanation that he seeks and say how we envisage the working of the arrangement for exchange of information between the community charges registration officer, the assessor and the electoral registration officer.
Subsection (2) of Clause 17 provides for this exchange of information but I should point out that there is a restriction on it. The access and use which the registration officer may make of the information held by the assessor or electoral registration officer is restricted to the purpose of discharging his functions under the Bill, and, similarly, the information to which he can have access is restricted to the information which these other officers have acquired in connection with any of their functions.
The provision that the community charge registration officer should also have access to information held by the electoral registration officer is in large part simply a formal recognition of the fact that the community charge registration officer, like any other citizen, will have access to the electoral register which is of course a public document. However, the provision goes a little wider in that it will allow, for instance, the community charge registration officer's department to have access to information which the electoral registration officer's department may have collected in order to prepare an electoral register which has not yet been published. It would be wrong to deny him the use of that information as a basic input.
The provisions of Clauses 14 and 15 for notification by the registration officer of people who have been entered in the register and their rights of appeal will ensure that no improper or careless use is made of the information available from the electoral registration officer. The official concerned is wearing three hats. He has three sets of powers and three data bases. They are governed by separate statutes and information cannot be exchanged between them without a statutory authority. That is why the provision is necessary, in order, as the noble Lord said, to allow the person concerned to talk to himself in the capacity of the hats that he is wearing.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: There are other aspects of the holy trinity which we want to discuss on the amendment down in my name. I refer to the question of the voter trying to keep himself off the register to avoid paying the personal community charge. It must
1124
be significant to someone of 18 who will be paying the charge, perhaps for three years or four years between elections, but is not particularly political. It seems to me that he would try to evade paying £200 a year for that term for the privilege of voting.
We really want to encourage people to vote. I wonder what the Government think of the possible outcome of the register being a three part register. Have they considered whether a large number of voters will, for the sake of the money, remove themselves from the electoral register so that they do not go on the community charge register? I think that it is a very real danger. The Government must have thought about it, and it is a point about which we require information.
Lord Glenarthur: While there may well be a risk, I should have thought that the mechanism that I have outlined, which allows the person wearing those three hats, so to speak, to look at the other elements which I have described to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is designed to do precisely that—to lessen the possibility which may be real in the noble Lord's mind that some people may try to get away with it. I hope that what is allowed for in the Bill will make that possibility less likely. That is why I have given the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, the explanation about the working of this part of the Bill and why I believe that the provisions in Clause 17(2) are necessary. I think those provisions go a long way towards meeting the noble Lord's concerns.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: That raises unpleasant factors in our society. The assessor, or whatever one may call him, has three jobs and obviously has access to information. I think it is clear that some people will try to avoid the charge and from that arises the question of people passing information; in other words, people informing on neighbours who they think are getting away with not paying the charge.
That is one of the bad aspects of the Bill. It proposes a set-up which will encourage people to inform on their neighbours. People will try to get off the electoral register because to be on it they will have to pay money.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord should not assume that someone who stays off the electoral register will be able to avoid the community charge register. There may be those who would like to, but I do not think it will be easy to do that because the community charge register will be based on rather more intensive registration procedures being kept up to date throughout the year, with access to a wider range of information.
I said earlier that the access to and use which the registration officer may make of information held by the assessor or electoral registration officer are restricted. They are restricted to the purpose of discharging his functions under the Bill. Similarly, the information to which he can have access is restricted to the information which these other officers have acquired in connection with any of their functions. Therefore, it seems to me that the loophole by means of which people could try to get information to which they are not entitled is covered in the Bill.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I think that the Government have tried to cover it. However, the unease in my mind arises from the phrase that the Minister just used—"more intensive registration procedures." It is that which brings fear into the minds of many people. However, I shall study what the Minister said and come back on Report.
Lord Burton: May I put this question to my noble friend the Minister? I do not necessarily want an answer now. Why cannnot the national insurance list be used in helping to compile the register?
Lord Glenarthur: I do not have the answer now but I will contact my noble friend later. I do not think it could be used, because, as I have said, the restriction is entirely dependent on the information which is required in connection with the other functions, to which I have referred, under the three hats that this individual is wearing.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, shows the dangers of the registration officer trying to get as full and accurate information as possible. We had a report recently, supported by the Home Secretary, which drew attention to the fact that a great many people are not on the electoral roll. The Committee should remember that in Scotland the same person who draws up the electoral roll will be drawing up this register.
The study that was carried out in Scotland by the Consumer Council and the local authorities, who dealt with difficult groups of people, discovered that a considerable number—as many as one in three—of young people aged between 18 and 24 did not register. If they do not register for a right and a privilege when they pay nothing for it and do not take the trouble to vote; and if the voting register is to be used to check the fullness of the new register so that if your name appears on it you are liable for a community charge of between £200 and £400 per year, payable in monthly instalments, there is going to be difficulty in getting them to register to pay that sort of money.
The Government are laying down who the community registrar is to be. The levying authority does not appoint. We are told in the Bill who it is to be in the same way as we were told that the assessor is to be the electoral registration officer. Perhaps the Minister will look at a point which has just this moment come into my mind. The assessor is a privileged person in the local authority. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, who has been on a local authority, will know that once appointed he cannot easily be removed. I believe a two-thirds majority of the council is required to remove him. I do not know whether that is true of the electoral registration officer. It is certainly not true of the community charge officer. By appointing him we are virtually giving him a special position as well. That is one important aspect. We do not want political interference with the assessor.
Would it not be far better to allow the local authority to appoint the community charge officer? He would be vetted, of course, by the Secretary of State; and there are ways we can do that, as we do with chief constables and so on. He would be a completely
1126
separate officer and could give more of his attention to the job. It might be that he could help with the business of getting young people to take more interest and to have more accountability. There could be difficulties if one man has the power to go into another room in his office and check in respect of two aspects. It might also worry some of the people paying non-domestic rates because the continuing sphere of his work is with commercial and business properties. It would be overloading the assessor or the electoral registration officer with work. I hope that the Government will look at that point.
One of the troubles with this Bill is that we do not have the time to go into it. We have to prepare for the next stage of this Bill, which is being taken the day after we return from the Easter Recess. I do not know where everyone else is going for Easter but I know where I am going. I will be locked up with this Bill and looking over all the amendments that have been agreed to and those that the Minister has promised to consider. The Minister will have a nice time, too. Perhaps he should come to Ayrshire and stay with his mother for a fortnight, where he will be near me!
It will be difficult for us to make sense of the Bill if we are to return to it the day after we return. The Bill will not be printed until Wednesday of next week. By the time it reaches Ayrshire it will be Friday. If I am to post amendments back in time I shall have only three days to deal with it. That also applies to my noble friend Lord Carmichael, who comes from Glasgow, to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill, who comes from Aberdeen, and to my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna, who comes from Edinburgh. Are we going to have time to get together? We could find that someone, unthinking of his duties to this House as placed on us by our Leader, has gone away for the weekend! The next stage should be taken a week after we come back to enable us to get some sense out of this Bill.
That has been the trouble with this Bill right from the start. It has placed local authorities and civil servants in a difficult position. The draftsman is never placed in a difficult position. He just writes it down and tells the Minister that it is precedented and away we go. Of course the draftsman is not employed by the Scottish Office but usually by the Crown. No wonder the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is keeping out of the way!
However, will he think about the possibility of having a separate registration officer in respect of these charges? It is a very big and important job. It makes no sense for that man to talk to himself provided that he goes into another room to do it. What will they do in the Highlands? He has also to look after the rather defective computer about which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, told us. The whole process is not good enough.
Lord Glenarthur: I shall study what the noble Lord said, but I do not think the concerns that he raises are entirely valid. The appointment of the assessor as community charges registration officer ensures automatically that the degree of independence from the local authority that is already enjoyed by the assessor will be carried over as is necessary to the appointment of the community charges registration officer.

1127
That seems to meet the concern of the noble Lord. I shall study with great care what he has said and I hope that he will study my remarks. We dealt with this matter to some extent in relation to Clause 12, but I hope that he will study what I have said. I shall equally study his observations and we shall both have an enjoyable Easter.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The important point is that a man who has security of tenure by virtue of one appointment then has two other appointments. Is the Minister telling us that that security of tenure carries over? Suppose the registration officer turns out to be a hopeless failure. One cannot get rid of him without having a 2,000 voice majority in the council. Let the Minister think about that situation because it raises another very serious problem. However, in view of what he has said, I shall certainly give him time to look over the matter. I shall leave my telephone number with him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 206A not moved.]
12 noon
Lord Wilson of Langside Lord Wilson of Langside moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 15, line 32, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 207 with which it may also be convenient to consider Amendment No. 209. This amendment probes further some aspects of the issues that have already been raised by the two previous amendments. The matter is of some importance and must be discussed further but I shall endeavour to be brief because it seems to me that we may well have to come back to it at a later stage.
At the outset it is relevant to observe that the Layfield Report, to which there have been many references in the course of the debates on this wretched Bill, commented in Chapter 10 that in relation to what it calls the "benefits" of the rating system:
"There are no problems of confidentiality of the taxpayers' personal income or circumstances (save now, where rebates are claimed)".
The two amendments to which I now speak are designed to alert the Government to the widespread anxieties on aspects of confidentiality of which we have become aware since this Bill was presented. Having regard in particular to Clauses 17(2) and 17(3) it seems clear that these anxieties could lead to very serious problems.
The purpose of Clause 17(2) is to provide that the registration officer is to have access to and the use of any information collected by himself, the assessor, or the electoral registration officer for the purpose of discharging his functions under the Bill. That provides a basis for the coming into operation of the poll tax or what is less accurately described as the community charge, if that is preferred.
This matter has been touched upon before, but I must raise it again. It is almost inevitable that the registration officer will use the electoral register as a major source of his information and some people will be registered for tax purposes on the basis of that
1128
information. There will always be some houses in which no one is present and canvassing does not take place, and the electoral register will then become the major source of information.
My noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie has already touched on the danger of tying up the taxation system with the electoral registration system, and I shall not develop the point further. It raises dangers in principle. Clause 17(3) goes further and provides for the registration officer also to be able to collect information from local councils, subject to subsection (4), and provides that the registration officer may require his fellow registration officers in other neighbouring areas and the regional or islands council or any district council in his registration area to supply him with such information as he may reasonably require in connection with his functions.
As the Minister has already said, it is true that that is limited to matters in connection with his functions; but, as I have said, those provisions have given rise to considerable anxiety among people in Scotland who may be affected by it, and who are concerned lest confidential matters might be disclosed under these provisions, and these anxieties have been brought to our attention.
I should be interested to learn whether the Minister has anything further to say that might help to allay the anxieties that have been expressed to us and to satisfy us that it is not necessary to probe further at the next stage. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: In connection with this amendment, which I support, I wonder whether I can raise a point relating to the electoral register. I do so with diffidence because I must confess that this area is not one in which I am a leading expert. I find it very difficult to foretell the results of this Bill.
I think it is agreed that the electoral register will be a prime source of information when it comes to levying these charges. As I understand it, at the moment the electoral register depends upon the returns put in by householders. The person who is entered on the register by the householder may have no means of knowing whether he has been so entered. I put my next remark in the form of a question: if he does find out, has he any means of appeal?
Subject to correction, I do not think that it is an offence to appear on two electoral registers. It is an offence to vote twice. I ask the question: is it an offence to appear on two electoral registers? Further, is there any appeal against being entered on a register? As has been said, many people will strongly resent being entered on the register. Does it not put the householder in a somewhat invidious position if the decision is to be left to him? The electoral register is the only evidence of which I know that the regional, island or district councils can put forward without, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, said, trespassing on confidentiality.
It would be convenient if the Government would explain what type of information they presume might be obtained from those councils, because, as has been said, there is considerable anxiety about the whole matter.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendment No. 211A, which is in the same batch, so that the Minister can reply at the same time. Its purpose is to probe the type of information which will not be made available to the community charges registration officer even allowing for the fact that it may be the same person in another hat who will be collecting the information. I am asking that question because I know that Strathclyde regional council and one or two others make a survey. They call it the voluntary population survey. It is of great help to them.
The councils send a letter to the electors in which they make clear the purpose of the voluntary population survey. Its purpose is to enable the councils to plan and provide services as economically and efficiently as possible. The councils should know how the population is changing. That is information which it is difficult to obtain in any way other than by personal survey. They need to know the number of children requiring school places and the number of old people who generally have a greater need for the various social services.
The population survey achieves that by collecting information about the ages and sexes of the population. It provides statistics which are updated annually. In addition, population information about individual addresses may help in the provision of regional services such as education and social work. Because of the nature of the survey, its confidentiality is stressed to the individuals involved. A letter from the chief executive of the regional council is sent which states:
"I assure you that the information you provide will be treated in the strictest confidence. It will not be printed in the register of electors nor will it be made public in any way which would allow individuals to be identified".
If such information, which regional councils find helpful, must be given, even if they were given statutory authority to bypass the principles of the Data Protection Act under which they are registered, they would be breaking a promise to the public, which has responded well. I imagine that any future benefit from such a survey would be much less than it is now because the local authority would be unable to assure the public that the information was purely for internal administration purposes and that the information, some of which is personal, would not be available to anyone else.
I hope that the Minister will take that point on board because I think that it is important. The council has told me that it was required, by virtue of the Data Protection Act, to register the holding of that information and the purpose for which it was being obtained. However, I think that the promise to the public is more important. I hope that the Minister will give me some information about Amendment No. 211A, which was tabled as a probing amendment in order to obtain his view.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: The amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, would remove from Clause 17 the provision that the registration officer may require the local authorities in
1130
his registration area to supply him with such information as he may reasonably require in connection with his functions. That information is information which the local authority has in connection with any of its functions.
I should perhaps make two points about the way in which we envisage that such information will be provided. First, local authority departments would not be required to open all their files to the registration officer. That would be wrong and would in any case be inefficient as the registration officer will in the vast majority of cases be seeking to check simple information on names and addresses and such matters. Local authority departments will only be required to supply the registration officer with such information as he requires. That is subject to a test of reasonableness and to the provision that it should be information which the registration officer requires in connection with his functions.
Secondly, the provisions of Clause 17 in no sense require other local authorities to act as collectors of information for the registration officer. The information which they will be required to provide is restricted to information which they will hold in connection with their present functions.
I should also mention another safeguard on the availability of local authority information to the registration officer. Clause 17(4) provides that the local authority should not be required to supply the registration officer with prescribed information. That prescription may be a reference to classes of functions of a local authority or classes of information. The Government have already made clear that it is their intention to use that power to put off limits particularly sensitive or confidential personal information held by social work departments or the police.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was worried about the nature of the information. It is right that in making and keeping up to date the register of those who will be liable to pay for local services, the registration officer should have access to information held by local authorities which supply the relevant services. In the vast majority of cases, as I have said, access to that information will be needed merely to check the information provided by individuals or responsible persons about residents in the local authority's area; for instance, local authority housing records will contain information about the names and addresses of tenants of local authority houses, and education records will contain some relevant information on the addresses and dates of birth of young people who become liable to pay the personal community charge at the age of 18. Other departments will have records of the names and addresses of people taking up local authority services such as library services or bus season tickets.
In answer to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, as I understand it, it would not be an offence to appear on two electoral registers. I think that that was his first question. The second was whether there was an appeal mechanism. I understand that if a person wanted to be on another electoral register, and for some reason his application was refused, he would have a right of appeal against that refusal. That works

1131
rather more to his advantage than does the suggestion that the noble Lord was making. I assure him that it is not an offence to appear on two electoral registers.
On the question of what information would be obtained from councils, we are talking about fairly basic information. For example, the names of local authority tenants would enable the canvass process to start off efficiently which it obviously has to do. Other records might provide a useful check—for example, the names of school leavers. What we are trying to do is what concerns the noble Lord, Lord Mackie: to make sure that within the bounds of the safeguards contained, the information — which it is reasonable to have to make the system work—should be available. That is the burden of this entire part of the Bill.
I hope in the light of that explanation that I have been able to afford some reassurance and that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. In a moment I shall be returning to some other amendments—Amendments Nos. 208 and 210 to 213—which are connected with it. They are government amendments and provide some further safeguards.
Lord Grimond: Before the noble and learned Lord makes up his mind what he is going to do, perhaps I may thank the Minister for the information that he has given. When he is mulling over what he will do with this Bill in the long Easter break, can I ask him to consider this? Up to now it might be considered an advantage to appear on two electoral rolls because one then has an alternative; if one does not vote in one place, one might vote in another. It may be a very serious disadvantage to appear in two electoral rolls. Further, one may not know that this has happened. As it is no offence, there is no means of knowing. I do not ask the Minister to go any further on this point now but I ask him to consider it. He has changed the situation round. People may be affected by being entered on rolls about which they know nothing.
Lord Burton: I am not sure whether I misheard or misunderstood the Minister. He referred to the registration officer not being entitled to receive information which was not already available to the person he was asking. Has it been borne in mind that the number of people occupying district council houses is not currently available to the district council? It only knows who its tenant is; it does not know who else is living in the house.
Lord Glenarthur: I shall take note of that remark. I do not have the information with me to comment on the point about district councils.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I am most grateful to the Minister for his careful reply to these two amendments. I do not know whether what he has said will allay the anxieties that have been expressed to us in the real world outside. But this adds to my anxieties because all these prescriptions are to be subject to the negative resolution so that they can always be changed. I am sure that the present government would never depart from any undertaking which they have given, and which has been given in particular in your
1132
Lordships' House as to how these powers of negative resolution will be used. But the powers remain there and in this context one is a little anxious about the future. However I shall consider carefully what the Minister has said and my friends and I will consider whether we wish to raise this issue again on a future occasion. In the meantime—
Lord Glenarthur: Before the noble and learned Lord withdraws his amendment—which he looked to me as though he might be about to do—perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. He asked me during the Easter break to mull over the question of people not knowing that they are on two rolls. As I understand it, if being on the electoral roll leads to registration for a community charge, the individual will be notified. Clauses 14 and 15 are perhaps relevant. The noble Lord will bear that in mind.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 15, line 32, leave out ("or any district council") and insert (", any district council, or any housing body")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 208, perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 210, 211, 212 and 213 together. These amendments extend for the sake of completeness provisions of Clause 17(3) and (4) to include not only local authorities but also housing bodies as defined elsewhere in the Bill—district councils, the Scottish Special Housing Association, and New Town Development Corporations. Under the present provision the registration officer will be able to have access to records held by district councils as housing authorities of the names and addresses of tenants living in the houses they let. On consideration that seems to go some way to answering the point of my noble friend Lord Burton.
It would, however, be equally desirable for the registration officer to have a similar access to the records of the other housing bodies I have just mentioned. These amendments provide for this extension. They also provide that the information held by housing bodies may be restricted in the same way as the information held by local authorities under the provisions of Clause 17(4) which I have mentioned to allow prescription of certain information which should not be made available to the registration officer. Housing bodies will of course be fully involved in the collection arrangements for the community charges. We shall have an opportunity to discuss these arrangements when we debate Schedule 2. It is right therefore that there should be the same provision for the exchange of information between the Scottish Special Housing Association and the New Town Development Corporations and the registration officer as there already is between the district councils and the registration officer. I hope that the Committee agree that these amendments provide a useful and necessary extension of the provisions of the Bill and I commend them to the Committee.
The Earl of Selkirk: Will there be an effective definition? "Housing body" is a very vague term. I can think of a lot of organisations which might or might not fall within it.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend answers that, can he say whether the term "housing body" has been used previously in Scottish legislation?
Lord Hughes: May I also come in on that point? I thought that the Minister indicated that "housing body" would be defined somewhere as district council, Scottish Special Housing Association and the New Town Development Corporations. If it were so confined, then obviously that is all right. But if there is not a tight definition, then one would find that housing associations would be roped in as a housing body because in ordinary language "housing association" is a housing body. But I do not think that the Government are intending to involve it in this work.
Lord Glenarthur: I hope that I can help my noble friend. On the question of the definition of "housing body", if we look at Schedule 2, paragraph 5(6) we find that in (a) "housing body" means a district council, in (b) the Scottish Special Housing Association, and in (c)
"a development corporation (within the meaning of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968)."
That provides the definition which my noble friend Lord Selkirk asked for.
On the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton, or the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on whether housing associations included the Scottish Special Housing Association and the new towns, the noble Lord may have given me food for thought on that point. I should like to read what the noble Lord has said rather than to commit myself now. Three points were made quickly which necessitated reference to Schedule 2 fairly speedily, and I may have missed a point.
12.30 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: May I ask the noble Lord whether he would consider putting this definition in the interpretation clause, Clause 26? It should be quite clear what we are talking about. Schedules are terrible things to understand.
Lord Renton: May I support my noble friend on that point and perhaps take the matter a little further? There are so many definitions dotted about the Bill, some of which are quite new. There is the interpretation of Part I in Clause 6, where there are about a dozen definitions. There is the interpretation clause towards the end of the Bill with a lot more definitions. Now my noble friend Lord Selkirk has pointed out that there is a definition right along in the second schedule, which is not related solely to that schedule. It is a definition which we needed in order to understand Clause 17. Therefore, the case for having the definitions all together and only in the Bill is very strong indeed. It would save time and simplify the task of my noble friend.
Lord Glenarthur: If my noble friend looks at Amendment No. 265 to Clause 26, he will find that is precisely what we propose to do.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not disagree with that suggestion. I am surprised the Minister had not read through the list of amendments to see exactly what he was to move later on. There is also the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burton. The information will be of limited value. It will give the names of the householder—the person who pays the rates. Of course they are not to be included in future. If you are concerned about who else is living in a house you will not find out from the district authority, and let us not be surprised that there are more people than the person who pays the rates.
I remember a time when the Government were encouraging people in the Highlands and elsewhere from a tourist point of view to take in people so they would receive some revenue during the summer and other periods. As I have said the information will be of limited value. Perhaps the most important part of the Bill in relation to this matter is further on. I do not know whether we shall finish the Committee stage by Monday if we continue at this rate.
Lord Burton: I am sorry to say I think the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is right. Page 15, line 37, states:
"the local authority have in connection with any of their functions."
It is not their function to know who is living in a house.
Lord Glenarthur: I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, much in the same way that I hoped I had reassured the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, earlier, that the information that we need is the information which would be provided for starting off the canvass. That is why it is necessary to have the names of the householders. I hope with the explanation of what we are trying to achieve by these amendments, and indeed the point that we are trying to correct by a later amendment—the definition in the schedule—that we can consider this amendment concluded.
Lord Hughes: In view of the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, concerning the difficulty of finding interpretations and knowing where to look for them, perhaps the Minister may consider specifying a Scottish housing association or a new town development corporation in such places, instead of saying "or any housing body". Then it becomes perfectly clear that the matter is being confined to the district council, the SSHA and the new town development corporations. Will he keep that suggestion in mind as a possibility?
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I can consider that as a drafting point. I shall certainly look at that suggestion but I do not wish to give an undertaking on it without further consideration.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 209 not moved.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 15, line 37, after ("authority") insert ("or housing body")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 211:
Page 15, line 38, after ("council") insert ("or housing body")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment no. 211A not moved.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 212 and 213:
Page 15, line 40, leave out ("or a") and insert (", housing body, or other")
Page 15, line 43, after ("authority") insert ("or housing body")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The next amendment is Amendment No. 214. If this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment Nos. 215 to 218.
[Amendments Nos. 214 and 214A not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 215:
Page 16, leave out lines 3 to 5
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 215 and at the same time speak to Amendment Nos. 215A, 216 and 217. The purpose of this amendment is to look at the position of an owner or a tenant occupying the premises. We are trying to find a definition for a responsible person in a household. This matter has already been discussed in a number of cases. It was raised concerning the question of a group of students living in a house as to whether or not any of the students would be willing to take the responsibility. For example, there may be two people who pay equal rates in a house living as man and wife, or actually being man and wife. There is the possibility that people would refuse to take the responsibility and under the clause the registration officer would be given the right to say, "You will be the responsible person". It may be quite inappropriate to do this.
We need a much better definition of who is a responsible person. The responsible person would be required to give information, and if the information given was false information, there could be, as comes later, a heavy penalty of a £50 or £200 fine which could be added to the community charge. Without being able to define who is a responsible person this would seem to be too much. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The next amendment makes much the same point. It appears that with the possibility of imposing a fine of £50, and then for a second offence, £200, it is putting too much on the registration officer to be able to designate someone who is neither an owner nor a tenant for 12 months. It is very difficult to see who is going to designate the responsible person. It gives the registration officer far too great a power. It would be most unfortunate for a student in a house which is occupied by students to be designated and made the responsible person. What disturbs people is that the registration officer can make someone responsible who is neither the owner nor a responsible tenant. Perhaps in such a case the house
1136
should become liable to a collective charge or become a non-domestic subject. Certainly the amendment appears to give draconian powers to the registration officer if it means that he can appoint some unwilling person who is neither a responsible tenant nor the owner and make him responsible for giving mandatory information.
The Earl of Selkirk: Let us be quite clear about the matter. Is it obligatory to be a responsible person? Does one volunteer for that or can one refuse to be a responsible person? In other words are we nominating someone who will be liable for a fine or are we asking someone to say who is living in the house?
Lord Kirkhill: The Scottish Office consultation paper talked about "head of household" which then became "responsible person". In practice if this part of the Bill is carried into the Act, one person sharing a flat will have to speak on behalf of some other flat sharer. That seems to me to be a most odious concept.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: It may help the noble Earl if I quote line 21 on the same page, which states:
"Where the registration officer is satisfied that a responsible person…has failed to comply with the duty to provide the information,"
he may be fined.
Lord Glenarthur: First, there is not very much between myself and noble Lords opposite as regards the way in which we envisage the system working. It seems to me that in the vast majority of cases it will be obvious who the responsible person is. From what I have said it will be obvious that in the vast majority of cases, however the responsible person is identified he or she will be resident on the premises; but it is conceivable that in some cases he will not be. That is why I cannot accept Amendment No. 216.
I hope that what I have said so far will serve to explain why I do not feel able to accept Amendment No. 215A which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, because that would remove altogether the registration officer's power to designate a responsible person. While I do not expect that the power will have to be used in very many cases, I trust that from the examples that I have given it will be clear that in certain circumstances it will be essential.
I cannot accept Lord Kirkhill's suggestion that to make someone a responsible person is an odious concept because the information is obtained in similar ways for electoral registration and censuses. I cannot think for one minute that either of those is an odious concept.
Lord Kirkhill: I do not wish to prolong the discussion unnecessarily, but I do not think that the Minister is drawing a fair analogy. There is benefit from membership of the electoral roll. As regards registration, if there is a failure to register a penalty ensues. My objection is that one flat sharer has an inappropriate responsibility towards one of his fellow flat sharers under this clause of the Bill. The Minister must address himself to the fact that this matter is without precedent in Scots law.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord makes a point about precedents. It seems to me that, precedents or otherwise, one cannot possibly say that just because something is without precedent it must have tagged to it the word "odious". Responsibility comes in a number of different ways. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Selkirk will have understood from what I have said that nominating someone as responsible will be an obligatory process. To suggest in the wider sense that nominating somebody as responsible could be such a simple process that one could apply the stricture "odious" is going rather far.
I hope that I shall answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, by saying that if a person is designated as a responsible person by the registration officer he has a right of appeal to the sheriff under Clause 17(9):
"on the grounds that it is not appropriate that he should be so designated".
That covers the question of he or she who may be one of two people sharing a flat together, which concerned the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Kirkhill: No. I was just sitting crouched in case I had to interrupt. However, I did not wish to intervene; I thought better of it. Nevertheless, I want the Minister to believe that I consider that my use of the word "odious" was in the circumstances restrained.
Lord Hughes: Reference was made to the possibility of a student being designated. My noble friend Lord Carmichael mentioned that possibility. It is fairly common, certainly in Edinburgh and possibly in Glasgow, for flats to be occupied by three, four or even more students and for them to be the only occupants. However subject to anything else which may come up in connection with students, as they will not be paying the community charge the position will arise that nobody in that flat will pay the community charge for the flat. How does the registration officer satisfy himself that they are all students and that therefore nobody should be designated for that flat?
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I may return to that point in a moment.
I now turn to Amendment No. 218 which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, because it is of relevance. It would insert a provision whereby if a person thought it was not appropriate that he should be designated as a responsible person, he should be able to object to the registration officer as a first step in the existing formal appeal to the sheriff. I fully appreciate that that is a helpful approach. I am not entirely convinced that it is necessary, but the debate has thrown up a number of concerns about what might befall the person who is nominated as the responsible person.
In relation to Amendment No. 218, I am prepared without commitment to consider whether any change in the Bill is necessary to meet the concerns which have been expressed. I hope that on that understanding as regards Amendment No. 218 the noble Lord will feel a little reassured.
1138
I say briefly in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that, as I understand it, when students are sharing a flat the responsible person is not necessarily liable to pay the personal community charge himself. That seems a very brief answer, and if I can help the noble Lord by considering his remarks further I shall do so in due course.
Lord Hughes: It is so brief as to be totally unhelpful.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am glad that the Minister has decided to look again at this matter. We may look at it lightheartedly but this is one of the more important aspects of the Bill. It is not a question of canvassing to see who in the household is to go on to the election roll. People do not mind about that. We want to be more accurate. Is this the way to achieve that accuracy? If there is no agreement, the community registration officer can say, "You are the responsible person". He might be the most irresponsible person in the place, but as soon as the registration officer nominates him, the matter is decided, although he can go to the sheriff eventually. I had intended to move Amendment No. 218. A great many amendments I was not going to move, but I might as well move them. The Minister may be querying that point. We had an amendment that covered the whole provision, and we could have started with that, leaving out subsection (5) to (12). However, in the interests of time, we decided not to move it.
The point is that it is unfair to take this high-handed action. The community registration officer must obtain his information from somewhere. He would normally obtain it from whoever was in the house at the time the canvasser called, not necessarily the head of the household. However, it is a very different canvassing job in respect of this Bill. It could be that somebody who lived next door was able to give the information. But that is inviting somebody to be responsible for the accuracy of the information; many people would be unwilling.
My daughter used to live in a flat in Glasgow with six or seven others. I warned her mother never to go and see the place because the fantastic rents that are charged in certain parts of Glasgow are quite ridiculous. Who will be the responsible person if one person does not agree to it? The first responsibility is to give the information; the second, that the information should be adequate. If that is not done, there is a fine in the first instance of £50, and for further refusals to give information, one of £200. Who will invite that upon themselves?
And soon after Scotland has been used as a guinea pig, London, will be next. Many young people arriving in London have to live in a flat, five or six together, in order to begin to look at paying the kind of rents that are charged in this city. Nobody will volunteer to give the kind of information that the officer will require once this comes to England. We have been promised it. The Green Paper about which we have been talking was not referring to Scotland: it was referring to England, Scotland and Wales. So beware, the benefit spoken of the other night by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is coming to you!

1139
Is it fair that if agreement is not reached a person should be told, "You will be the responsible person?" It does not need to be somebody in the house at all. Section 17(6)(c) states:
"In any case, such other person as the registration officer considers it appropriate to designate as the responsible person".
It could be your granny who has been to see you only once. It could be anybody. I am glad that the Minister now appreciates the importance of this matter. I can foresee the difficulties of the registration officer.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: It appears that this subject has been well ventilated. The difficulties appear to be legion. I think that the Minister should look at the matter again. It must be grossly unfair that a county official can designate someone in a flat to take the responsibility. That is not the way one normally chooses leaders. It is a different matter altogether to have the initial designation of a tenant for 12 months. I know that there is an appeal, and that is something. However, it is enormously clumsy to choose someone and force that person to go to appeal. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will look again at this matter.
Lord Glenarthur: That is precisely what I said I would do; so I do not think that I need prolong the discussion any further.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I hope that the Minister takes this on board. There is opinion throughout the Committee of the need to find a better definition for "responsible person". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 215A and 216 not moved.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 16, line 7, after ("designate") insert ("from time to time").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment to remove any doubt that there may be about the powers of the registration officer to withdraw or amend the designation as a responsible person if the circumstances change. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 218:
Page 16, line 19, after ("may") insert ("object to the registration officer that it is not appropriate that he be so designated and if the registration officer fails to withdraw the designation may")
The noble Lord said: We have had some comforting words from the Minister with regard to Amendment No. 218. As a result of what he has said, I will not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 218 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 218A:
Page 16, line 21, leave out subsections (10) and (11) and insert—
("(10) It is an offence for any responsible person to:—

(a) fail to comply with the duty to provide the information required within the prescribed period, or

(b) give false information,

without reasonable excuse, and anyone convicted of such offence shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the
1140
standard scale in the case of a first offence or level 2 on the standard scale in the case of a second or any subsequent offence".
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to remove the provisions for a civil penalty to be imposed and to make it an offence not to provide the information required or to give false information. It seems to me to be unreasonable to expect the registration officer to inquire in every case whether or not a person has a reasonable excuse for providing false information. It imposes a responsibility on the registration officer to decide what is or what is not a reasonable excuse, subject to appeal to the sheriff.
That puts a heavy duty on the registration officer. It would be simpler if, in cases where he believed that false information had been given, this was made an offence and the sheriff should make the appropriate decision. In the words of the Secretary of State in another place, this would help to build up case law on this subject. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: The noble Lord has raised a serious point. This is an on-the-spot fine. Someone is designated to a position and then told he has not done his job correctly. Apparently, it is only the judgment of the officer and nobody else. He says, "Right, £50 on the spot." I believe that is a little arbitrary.
1 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: The effect of the amendment would be to provide for criminal rather than civil penalties—the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, appears to think that I have this wrong—on responsible persons who fail to provide information or who provide false information. At any rate, that is my reading of the amendment, unless I am totally mistaken. We are dealing with Amendment No. 218A.
I acknowledge that such an approach would accord with precedents such as those which can be found in the Representation of the Peoples Act relating to the canvass for the establishment of the electoral register and in the Valuation Acts relating to the provision of information requested by the assessor. However, I suggest that such a change would be to move in the wrong direction. The approach embodied in the Bill is in tune with current trends in taxation law, particularly following the report of the Keith Committee on the enforcement powers to the revenue departments, which recommended civil rather then criminal sanctions in relation to breaches of tax legislation. We believe that criminal sanctions would impose too heavy a potential stigma on individuals who may have been merely careless or dilatory.
The Bill places responsibility for the imposition of civil penalties under Clause 17, which relates to registration, on the registration officer. The reason for this is quite simple. It is the registration officer who is in charge of making inquiries who will receive the information from the canvass process and who will be responsible for following up gaps or inconsistencies. He will therefore be best placed to identify circumstances which appear to him to overstep those for which there is a reasonable excuse.
There is no reason to believe that registration officers will act unreasonably or unfairly in this matter.

1141
They are responsible public officials who are already well acquainted with the operation of a registration procedure through their role as electoral registration officers. It is very important to bear in mind that individuals will have a right of appeal to the sheriff against the imposition of civil penalties, so registration officers will not impose such a penalty arbitrarily or capriciously and will take into account the lessons to be learned from any court judgments which are made. That takes account of the need to build up the case law.
I believe that the provisions for civil penalties get the balance about right. The system should provide a reasonable deterrent, as it should against the refusal by responsible persons to provide information truthfully, while it will avoid criminal sanctions with all the stigma that they imply. The arrangement for the imposition of penalties provides safeguards for the individual and the arrangements for the collection of sums due but not paid will fit in well with the rest of the community charge system.
I hope with that explanation that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I can understand the attitude of government in relation to certain of the aspects of the revenue laws having a preference for the civil approach and so on. But I think it is a mistake in the context of this Bill, which has been described in a great variety of ways, particularly by Lord Ross of Marnock. I have in mind especially when the registration officer has designated the responsible person. I think the description of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, of this as an erroneous conception was an understatement if one thinks of the situation in which it is likely to happen.
In any event I cannot see the sense. I should have thought, in spite of the reluctance which we all have to make further criminal offences, that in this context the matter at least required further thought before the Government plumped for this solution.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: This is a a very difficult area. I believe it is all tied up with the definition of "responsible person". I shall read the Minister's reply and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Obtaining of information from individual residents]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 17, line 6, leave out ("notify") and insert ("be notified by")
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment something like one we had earlier where we felt the boot should be on the other foot. Here we are: every person now in Scotland who becomes 18 on or after 1st April 1989, instead of receiving a birthday greetings card, has to send one. Every person liable on 1st April 1989, or who becomes liable on or after that
1142
date, to pay the charge shall notify the registration officer. "Look, I am 18. Please send me my demand for £230". This is ridiculous. My suggestion is that he shall be notified that he is liable because the register should be fully kept up. It should not be the responsibility of someone who becomes liable for a tax to say, "Look, I am 18 now. Count me in. I shall be delighted to pay £230".
I hope the few English Peers who are here will appreciate that this is coming to them too, and they will have to justify this in England and Wales. We are very reluctant guinea-pigs in trying this one out. But is it not nonsense that we should ask the victim to say, "I am here, come and slaughter me"?
It is the registration officer who should notify the intended victim that he is now 18 and, thanks to the generosity of Mrs. Thatcher, he will now pay the penalty, and £230 per head, including his payment now that he is 18, will be paid. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: I wish to support what has been said on this amendment and to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that not only will this wretched chap aged 18 have to notify the registrar that he wishes to pay the tax, but he will have to read the Bill to find out whether he is liable. That will take him some time. I reckon he will be 21 before he finds out whether he is liable.
Lord Wilson of Langside: Once he has read the Bill he will be looking for a solicitor and no doubt in many cases will have to apply for legal aid. It will all be great fun for the lawyers.
Lord Glenarthur: I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord will find that to his liking. But seriously, it is easy enough to be facetious, as the noble Lord is, about the change that is being made. Let us come down to the practicalities. So that the rolling register can operate properly, which it has to do, and record all changes of residence and liability as they occur, there has to be a flow of information to the registration officer as changes occur. The Government have reached the conclusion that it would not be reasonable to place on responsible persons the duty of notifying all changes as they occur. It seems to me that if we applied that duty to them, that would make the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, in relation to those who might be sharing flats rather worse. We are probably helping in this respect. Surely it is more sensible to require individuals who become liable, or whose liability changes and who are thus most directly affected by the change, to inform the registration officer of that fact so that he can amend the register accordingly. This provision is achieved by Clause 18(1) and (2).
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Ross, referred to Amendments Nos. 219A to 219D?
Lord Ross of Marnock: No, I shall not be moving those.
Lord Glenarthur: In that case I shall not refer to them. I do not believe that to expect someone to provide the information without being asked to provide it can be an objection. There are a number of

1143
instances where the onus is upon the individual to say that circumstances have changed. That applies to a number of different records that are kept for one reason or another. I hope that with the explanation that this seems a much more sensible and practical way of going about it, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The only thing that enables me to withdraw the amendment is that there is going to be a Report stage. Obviously we have not nearly enough time to debate these matters. We are dealing here purely and simply with someone being liable on 1st April 1989 or becoming liable on or after that date. It is asking far too much to spoil anybody's birthday by saying, "Notify the registration officer that you are 18 and you are ready to pay". I do not know what the precedent is for that, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 219A to 219F not moved.]
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 17, line 24, leave out from ("thereon") to ("and") in line 26 and insert (", at such rate or rates as may be prescribed, in respect of the period commencing one month after the date shown on the register as the date from which he is liable to pay the community charge and ending on the date on which the entry is made in the register;").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment attempts to deal with a problem which I believe has rightly been concerning the assessors on administrative grounds. It also concerns me very much indeed on grounds of fairness and on grounds of trying to achieve comprehensibility for the individual payer of the community charge. The matter was originally raised during the Committee stage in another place, as the Committee will know, by the Scottish Rating Forum of the Rating and Valuation Association. Clause 18 as it stands—and I would remind the Committee that here we are in an area where one has to add five to all the numbers in the margin of the page in the Bill—implies that where someone has not registered in time and there is a backdated period on which the community charge is due, that person must pay not only the backdated charge but also interest on the whole of the sum. If the period is over three months an additional surcharge is added.
Clearly there is a problem here, especially when people move house and go from one local authority area to another. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ross who said that you had to send something off on your birthday, as opposed to being told what you were due. I remind him that not everybody is going to be in the same area when they move house.
This clause says that when somebody moves and becomes liable they have a month in which to register. When they move, it is quite clear that many will not register immediately. Few will register before they move and certainly they will not register on the day they arrive, when they will still be unpacking the furniture van. Most people, in order to comply with the law, will register within one month, which is the time allowed. When they have done that the local
1144
authority will send them a bill which will include interest. That interest will be on the backdated period up to that date.
Then, as the Bill stands, when they pay, as the assessors have pointed out, a further bill will have to be sent for the further interest which is due up to the date when their name gets on to the register. So they will get two bills. The first will be for the community charge and the interest up to a certain date and the second one will be for further interest. That will be confusing for them, and may seem extremely unjust. Also, administratively it is very clumsy.
My amendment would have two effects. The interest would not be payable at all for the first month after a person becomes liable and the interests would cease to be payable on the date of the register entry. That would mean that the people who took up to a month to register would be liable to the backdated community charge but not to interest. That is the month in which they are allowed to register and there would be no interest due. The amendment would also mean that the local authority could then make up a single bill rather than having to send a follow-up bill for the additional interest, which would depend on the date when the initial bill was paid.
Of course the legislation would still provide that if a person did not pay the normal debt recovery procedures would operate, and that includes the surcharge. It therefore seems that one can say in effect that the surcharge would make up for the interest due from the date the bill is sent. Without this amendment, I suggest that there would have been a double penalty on some people. On grounds of justice and ease of understanding by people when they receive their bills, and also on the grounds of workability from the point of view of the assessors, I hope the Government will consider this amendment very carefully.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: I have noted the criticisms of the existing provision in Clause 18(3)(a) put forward by the Scottish Rating Forum and which my noble friend has just spelt out. It seems to me that the solution proposed in the amendment meets the criticisms which have been made but does so without departing from the fundamental principle that there should be no financial advantage in avoiding registration. In the light of that, I am perfectly happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 22A to 224 not moved.]
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Effect of register]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 224A:
Page 18, line 7, at end insert—
("(d) the address at which liability is incurred")
The noble Lord said: Very briefly, this is just so that the address at which the liability is incurred will be inserted. If that address is not provided, how will the CCRO in one district be able to use the register of another district to prove the presence in and the

1145
departure from that district of any individual? I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I ought briefly to explain the purpose of Clause 19. Liability for any of the community charges depends on the circumstances set out in Clauses 8, 10 and 11 in relation to the personal standard and collective community charges respectively. Liability is not of itself established by the appearance of the name of a person or of premises on the register. A person is liable for the personal community charge by virtue of being solely or mainly resident in a local authority's area and not by virtue of appearing on the register. However, in order to ensure the evidential status of the register as a basis, for instance, of the arrangements for the billing and collection of community charges, Clause 19 provides that, subject to the appeal rights, the register is to be conclusive in respect of the liabilities it records.
However, the amendment would add to these provisions the provision that the register is to be liable as to the address at which the liability is incurred. As I have explained, liability flows from residence in a local authority's area and not from residence at a particular address. While the register will of course record the addresses of the persons who are liable, the fact or the amount of their liability will not, strictly speaking, depend on whether they are resident at one address in the local authority's area rather than at another. So I think that the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that with that explanation of the way in which Clause 19 works, and of what this amendment would do, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I believe that this amendment comes under Clause 19 and not Clause 20, as shown on the Marshalled List. But in view of that explanation from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, perhaps I may say for the sake of clarification that it seems there may be a mistake on the Marshalled List and that Amendment No. 224A should refer to Clause 19. I hope that clarifies the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Inspection of register]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 225:
Page 18, leave out from beginning of line 16 to ("and") in line 18.
The noble Lord said: I hope that the Government will make clear how many registers there are, where they are held, who can inspect them and what kind of limited inspection there will be, because there is a strange collection of rights and non-rights here. I do not know what is the grouping of amendments here, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has an interest; but, if I may speak to Amendment No. 228 as well, I am worried about the power of the authority
1146
to sell the whole register which is how I read subsection (4) of Clause 28,
"on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, for sale by the regional or islands council".
That is strange. I know that we sell electoral rolls to election agents and people who are interested, but selling this kind of information is a very different matter. I hope that we shall get some enlightenment in respect of that. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: Taking first Amendment No. 225, it may help if I explain why we consider that a member of the public should have the right to inspect the parts of the register which show the names of persons relating to each address. Unless a member of the public has this right, he will not be able to satisfy himself that the persons who appear to reside at an address are shown as registered in relation to it, and therefore as being liable to pay the personal community charge.
It is right that a person who is paying any of the community charges should be able to satisfy himself that the charges are being fairly applied, and that others who appear to him to be liable to pay any of those charges are also shown on the register. Otherwise, there is a very grave risk that the whole system of community charges could be brought into disrepute. I do not think this can be thought of by anybody as some sort of snooper's charter or anything like that. It is a matter of legitimate public interest. It is merely the equivalent of the fact that a member of the public can at present inspect the valuation placed on his neighbour's house in the valuation roll.
I turn now to Amendment No. 228, which would remove the power of a regional or islands council to sell those parts of the register which a member of the public may inspect. Perhaps I may stress to the noble Lord that this refers only to the public part of the register—that is to say, names and addresses. It is a very useful and harmless facility for a local authority to have. It is no more than a power which a local authority may exercise at its discretion to sell information to persons who could have obtained their information by themselves inspecting the register without paying any fee to the local authority. It enables the local authority to sell that information to those persons in a more convenient form.
There is a similar power under the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1986, which enables the registration officer to sell copies of the electors' lists or the electoral register. I do not see any good reason why a local authority should not have a similar power. Of course we are talking about a single register, allowing for inspection of different parts depending on the interests of different persons. So I hope that the noble Lord accepts the validity of what is written into the Bill on this point, and that what is there is designed to help and is precedented by some of the other examples which I have just given.
Lord Hughes: The three lines which my noble friend Lord Ross has asked to be excluded contain words in brackets. They read:
"the name or names of any person or persons relating to each address (but not so as to ascertain whether that person resides at that address)".

1147
I do not understand at all what that means. First, who is "that person"? Is it one of the people who are on the register at that place, or is it the person who is asking to look at the register? If he is able to look at a list of the persons who are there, how on earth can he be prevented from ascertaining who lives at the address? There may be some purpose in the words which are in brackets. I do not know whether I am being stupid, but I do not understand what that purpose is.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not think that the noble Lord is being in the least bit stupid about it. It is a complex area and, as is the case in so many of these statutes, the interpretation of the Bill has to be put beyond doubt from the point of view of lawyers. It has to be clear precisely what is meant. The register will not show whether a person named in relation to an address actually resides at that address and is therefore liable to the personal community charge, or whether he is the owner but not the occupier of those premises and therefore liable for the standard community charge.
The reason for this is fairly straightforward. It is to avoid the register being used for criminal purposes by assisting persons to identify premises which might be unoccupied, such as second homes. So it is a further safeguard. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.
Lord Hughes: Partly, yes. But the noble Lord has not answered the other point that I raised. Who is "that person"? Is it the inquirer or somebody who is listed as being at the address?
Lord Glenarthur: I am bound to say that I cannot quite remember the context of the noble Lord's second point. Perhaps he could repeat it.
Lord Hughes: The words in brackets are:
"(but not so as to ascertain whether that person resides at that address)".
I did not know whether "that person" indicated who was making the inquiry, or whether it was to find out if a particular person, "that person", was listed among the names and addresses.
Lord Glenarthur: That is embodied in the answer I have just given to the noble Lord. If he goes back he will see that we are talking here about a person who is entitled to inspect the register. So the words "that person" refer to the person on the register. I think it is clear. The noble Lord does not seem to believe me, but I believe that to be right. If my interpretation is wrong, I shall let him know. But I think he will find that my description is correct, because "that person" is the equivalent of the person on the register.
Lord Hughes: I am happy to accept that the Minister believes that is the position. He has not convinced me, however.
Lord Ross of Marnock: If it had been convincing and if it was as clear as the noble Lord suggests, I should not have put the amendment down. However, I shall not hold the Committee up on this point at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 18, line 22, at end insert ("(but not the collective community charge multiplier relating to premises within such class or classes as may be prescribed)").
The noble Lord said: This is an important though I trust not too controversial amendment. It covers a subject which we have discussed at some length in considering Amendments Nos. 22 and 163A. Therefore, I shall not detain the Committee too long. The amendment has become necessary because, when the community charge multiplier becomes appropriate for a residence where, for example, there is a women's refuge in which battered women may live for long periods of time, the existence of the multiplier on the public register could jeopardise the confidentiality of the addresses of such refuges and allow husbands, boyfriends or anyone else wishing to see such women to trace them to that address. Scottish Women's Aid is very concerned about that threat and I believe that this amendment will go some way to allay the fear.
The amendment allows the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing a class or classes of premises whose collective community charge multiplier would not appear on the public register. I think that it is easy to get carried away with a subject whose protagonists suffer from such tragic abuse. However, I hope that the Committee will see the amendment as going some way to protect their identity and thus make their lives more secure. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: I have listened carefully to what my noble friend has said. We have already discussed at some length the position of women living in refuges under the new system. As the Committee will recall, I have agreed to consider further, in consultation with Scottish Women's Aid, how such refuges might best be treated. I accept that if it is considered right that a collective community charge liability should arise in respect of them it would be useful to have a provision whereby the collective community charge multiplier would not appear on the public register and thus any possibility of easy identification of where such refuges are would be avoided. On that basis, and without prejudice to the general reconsideration of the position of women's refuges which we are now undertaking, I am happy to accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Wilson of Langside: It may be that this amendment is acceptable to the Government. However, I should not wish the Minister to think that those of us who are concerned about the position of women's refuges find that it makes any great contribution to solving the problem.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 227 and 228 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 19, line 16, at end insert—
("(10) The registration officer shall as soon as is reasonably practicable send a copy of the whole register as in force on 1st April each year to the Keeper of the Records of Scotland for preservation by him.
(11) The Keeper shall not, except as may be prescribed—

(a) make any register sent to him under subsection (10) above available for inspection; nor

1149

(b) issue under section 9 of the Public Records (Scotland) Act 1937 extracts or certified copies of such a register.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment has become necessary since under Section 35 of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act 1854, as amended, valuation rolls are made available to the Keeper of the Records for Scotland for the purposes of research into local history and genealogy, as well as other legal purposes. This has been extremely useful in helping people to find out about the past when few other pieces of information are available. I therefore believe that it is reasonable for the keeper to receive a copy of the community charge register on 1st April of every year. This then allows for a detailed record to be kept for historical analysis in the future.
However, it has been pointed out that there is a question of confidentiality. The amendment also allows the Secretary of State to restrict by prescription those having access to the register. I now believe that it would be right to make the register available to all after 30 years, which is the normal closure period for government records. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: I fully accept the force of the points which have been made on the usefulness, in due course, of the register to researchers and I consider that this would be a desirable amendment. I understand that the Keeper of the Records of Scotland has agreed with that and has indeed requested that the amendment be made.
I should, however, say a word about the question of confidentiality, which is addressed by new subsection (11) proposed by the amendment. It would not of course be desirable if information on the register which is not available to the public through the normal inspection process should be made available through the rather more indirect process of consultation of the register as deposited with the keeper. New subsection (11) therefore restricts inspection of the register sent to him to the circumstances to be prescribed by the Secretary of State.
I should make it clear that the Government's intention is to prescribe that no part of the register as sent to the keeper should be made available for inspection, or for copies to be taken, before 30 years have elapsed. This is in accordance with the standard closure period for government records: it will ensure that the registers deposited with the keeper will be used only for their correct purpose—historical and genealogical research—and not for any other purpose. On that basis, I am happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Levy, collection, payment and recovery of community charges]:
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 230:
Page 29, line 14, leave out ("cause to be issued") and insert ("issue").
The noble Baroness said: This is an important group of amendments. In speaking to Amendment No. 230, it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 231, 232, 233, 241, 246 and 247. These amendments are designed to make the arrangements in the Bill for collecting the community charge through housing bodies much more flexible. We have already discussed what the Bill refers to when it uses the phrase "housing bodies". These arrangements are set out in paragraph 5 of Schedule 2. The Committee will see that Amendment No. 241 is the main amendment, the others being consequential upon it.
Several professional bodies have asked for greater flexibility. The Scottish Rating Forum of the Rating and Valuation Association made representations at Committee stage in another place and more recently at their conference. Members of the Committee will have read in the press that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy made a number of suggestions.
The problems identified seem to be these. As paragraph 5 stands in the Bill it places a duty on housing bodies, district councils, new town development corporations and the SSHA to collect community charges from residents in the houses they let. However, it does not say anything about how that is to be arrived at or whether they may help with other residents apart from tenants. Circumstances, as has been pointed out, vary enormously across the country and the possibility for involving housing bodies varies as well. Clearly housing associations and new towns are not in direct contact with residents other than their tenants. The district councils have a variety of contacts with most residents. I believe that these amendments meet most of the anxieties which have been expressed.
Amendment No. 241 rewrites paragraph (5). It provides for arrangements not unlike those that exist at present under Section 10 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975, whereby rating authorities can make arrangements of varying kinds with housing bodies to collect rates. Where there are difficulties under this arrangement in coming to a scheme it is up to the rating authority to ask the Secretary of State, after consulting with those concerned, to impose an agreement. My amendments provide the same kind of flexibility.
The arrangements under the amendments made between the levying authority and the housing bodies could vary widely to suit local circumstances. At one end of the spectrum the housing body could do the whole thing. It could issue community charge bills and undertake all collection, and this collection need not be confined to those living in public housing. At the other end of the spectrum, the levying authority might issue bills and do most of the work, with the housing body simply providing collection points in its local offices. There could be many variations in between.
The only point of substance where these proposals fall short of the total flexibility for which the assessors and others have asked is that they do not allow all housing bodies to undertake debt recovery through summary warrants. At present, as the Committee will know, rating authorities have these powers but other housing bodies do not need them. They recover arrears as part of the rent arrears recovery procedures. It seems sensible to extend to district councils the use of

1151
summary warrants under the Bill. They are, after all, like the regions, tax raising authorities in their own right. But I understand that, after discussion with Government, they feel it is inappropriate to extend the right to use the summary warrant procedure to new town development corporations and the SSHA, and I am bound to say that I take that point.
The other amendments in this group are consequential. In paragraphs (2) and (3) of the schedule there seems no need to say that the levying authority will cause bills to be issued. It will either issue the bills itself or delegate the responsibility to a housing body. Amendment No. 247 reflects the fact that with these amendments housing bodies will no longer have a separate statutory duty to collect community charges but will be carrying out functions of levying authorities on their behalf.
I must emphasise—and this is important—that these arrangements in no way interfere with the intention of the Bill that community charges collected in this way should and can be separately billed and clearly identifiable as opposed to the rent notice. I hope the Committee will feel that this considerable change is an acceptable and sensible approach. I beg to move.
1.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: I am aware that pressure for greater flexibility in the arrangements made under Schedule 2 has come not only from the Scottish Rating Forum of the Rating and Valuation Association and from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy but also from a number of individual local authority directors of finance. This amendment picks up very well the sense of what is required. It provides for flexible arrangements with the fallback of appeal to the Secretary of State by the levying authority on a basis which pretty closely matches the arrangements under the present system for rates. I am perfectly happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendments Nos. 231 to 233:
Page 29, line 27, leave out from ("passed") to end of line and insert ("issue him with a demand notice").
Page 29, line 31, leave out ("cause to be issued") and insert ("issue").
Page 29, line 37, leave out from ("which") to ("against") and insert ("issued the demand notice").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The next amendment is Amendment No. 233A. If this is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 234 to 237.
Lord Burton Lord Burton: moved Amendment No. 233A:
Page 29, line 43, leave out from ("payable") to ("as") in line 44 and insert ("at such times").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 233A and perhaps at the same time we may discuss Amendments Nos. 234 to 237, 237A, 238 and 238A.
The purpose of this amendment must be perfectly clear and I hope covers the objects of the next six or
1152
seven amendments. I raised the principle of this matter at Second Reading and I am pleased to see that on this occasion the Front Bench opposite seem to have agreed with me. They have also put down the next amendment, which I think was intended to cover what I am trying to do. Unfortunately, the next amendment appears to be faulty as it seems impossible to have ten equal monthly payments in view of the fact there are 12 months in the year. However, I hope that with Amendment No. 233A I have found a solution agreeable to everyone—perhaps a difficult thing to do on this Bill.
The existing rate-levying authorities will be given the unenviable task of collecting the community charges. They have already set up the systems for collecting rent and rates. Surely the Bill is complicated enough without adding complications to the collection. Why not give the local authorities discretion? After all, they have all the expertise and experience in this matter. Last night after a council meeting in Inverness I had an opportunity to discuss the Bill with our chief executive, and the whole question of collection arose. I raised the question of computers which from previous parts of the Bill I note is dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. This is an urgent, expensive and difficult matter, as it transpires that several different types of computer are being used by local authorities in Scotland. Several of these computers will not speak to each other. I raise this now as it is a complication which will have to be dealt with urgently. If new computers are to be acquired we shall have to decide which ones will be used and obviously they must be compatible with each other.
This is another reason for giving as much freedom as possible to the local authorities over collection matters. However, we must not focus too closely on collections to do with council houses. There are many other collections to be made. Clearly these collections must be made as simple as possible not only for those collecting but for those paying. We should therefore grant the maximum flexibility in this matter to the local authorities which already have that expertise. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I may make first what I think is the obvious point that payment by 12 monthly instalments is not to be imposed on all the community charged payers—far from it. Schedule 2(4)(10) provides that where the person liable to pay the community charge has agreed in writing with the levying authority—the region or islands council—that he will pay it otherwise than in accordance with the standard arrangements, that agreement will over-ride these arrangements. This means there is nothing to stop local authorities offering those liable for the community charge, if they wish, arrangement of payment options as they do at present in the case of rates, as my noble friend will acknowledge. Secondly, in many cases community charges will not be collected by levying authorities but by housing bodies under the terms of paragraph 5 of this schedule.
In discussing the amendments to that paragraph, tabled by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, we have had the opportunity to consider what these arrangements should be. I think we are all agreed that the arrangements in that case should be as flexible as possible.

1153
Nevertheless, it is desirable that standard instalment arrangements for collection by levying authorities should be set out even if in many cases they may be deviated from; and that is what paragraph 4 of the schedule does.
I believe that these points also meet the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Burton. His amendments would, in effect, leave all arrangements to the discretion of the local authorities while removing the provision in paragraph 4 which now grants a considerable degree of flexibility by allowing anyone to reach agreement with a local authority to pay otherwise than by the standard arrangements. I am sure that it is highly desirable for the standard arrangements to be clearly set out in the Bill.
It seems to me that there is one very good reason why the standard arrangements should be based on 12 monthly instalments rather than on 10 monthly instalments. Liability for community charges, unlike domestic rates, is a liability which is coterminous with the circumstances which give rise to them rather than a fixed annual liability. If rates are due on a house, there can be no doubt, in the vast majority of cases, that the liability which arises at the beginning of the financial year will have to be met at some point in the course of the year by the rateable occupier of the premises.
The position in relation to the community charge is different. If a person is resident in a local authority's area on 1st April, but leaves at some point in the course of the financial year, his liability only subsists for the period of his residence. It is thus logically important that the payment arrangements should mirror that fact.
I fully accept that the arrangements for a standard system of 12 monthly instalments means that the timetable for the announcement of the revenue support grant settlement leading to local authority budgeting and the setting of community charges will have to be different from the present arrangements for rates. However, that is not an insuperable problem. So far as central Government are concerned, we have always aimed, and will continue to aim, to give local authorities as much notice as possible of rate support grant—and, in the future, revenue support grant—settlements. We will, of course, consult fully local authority and other interests before the community charge timetable is set.
I have given a thorough explanation to my noble friend Lord Burton about why we believe that, as things are set out, the system will work and that the fears which I believe my noble friend has on his own particular area—or, indeed, the relevance, which I understand in a technical way at any rate, of the need for computers to talk to one another—are taken care of. We need the sort of flexibility here which the Bill already applies.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I see that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burton, is grouped with Amendments Nos. 235 and 236 in the names of myself and my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie. All I proposed to say about them was that they are two niggling little amendments which only lawyers could think of. I should have thought that, of the possible
1154
solutions to the matter, this was the most sensible. The paragraph would read that the charge would be payable by 12 monthly instalments,
"as near as may be equal".
I should have thought that that would be the sensible solution, but I do not know whether or not the Government agree.
Lord Glenarthur: Those amendments would alter the reference to 12 equal monthly instalments in paragraph 4(1) of the schedule to:
"12 monthly instalments as near as may be equal."
I should explain that sub-paragraph (1) is explicitly made subject to the remainder of the paragraph and various other provisions in the paragraph make it clear that the monthly instalments will not in all cases be exactly equal.
For example, sub-paragraph (6) provides that the levying authority may round off the amount of the instalments payable, except the first, to the nearest 5p and adjust the amount of the first instalment accordingly. That mirrors the present arrangements in relation to rates. However, it is important that subparagraph (1) should set out clearly the principle on which the standard instalment arrangements will be calculated, and there seems no need to derogate from the basic principle that they should be equal.
While there is little between the suggestions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, and the intention of the paragraph, I must say that in drafting terms I feel that the present sub-paragraph (1) is preferable. It is not merely a semantic point and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept that.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I shall have to read what the Minister said. As I said, I thought it was a simple matter over which only lawyers would niggle. However, I will read what has been said and see what I make of it. In the meantime, I shall not be moving my amendments.
Lord Burton: I am disappointed to hear my noble friend's reply because he has not answered my points. There are many complications in this matter. For example, one of the reasons why there are currently 10 payments rather than 12 is that the local authorities have to set their budgets. Having done that, and set out the amount that currently has to be charged to rates—the community charge in future—that has to be printed and circulated. It will mean that all the budgets of the local authorities will have to be thought out very much earlier in the year and the whole system will be disrupted. I cannot see the object of that. Why are central Government trying to thrust this on local authorities when it does not seem to be necessary?
I suggest that my noble friend refers to Amendment No. 238A. He referred to sub-paragraph (10)(a), and I have an amendment down to delete that altogether. If my present amendment were accepted it would not be necessary. I am somewhat at a loss because I do not want to divide the Committee so I hope my noble friend will look at this carefully and give the local authorities some consideration, because I believe that there is considerable substance in the matter.
Lord Glenarthur: This is a complex matter and I hope that my noble friend will read what I have said. I have given him much information and I included in my comments the administrative arguments. However, I shall set out my comments in a slightly different form and I hope that will satisfy my noble friend.
We have obviously considered the administrative arguments. We recognise that the present arrangements for 10 monthly instalments in paying rates provides local authorities with what one might call a fallow period in March and April when they can bring up to date their records for one year and issue the demand notices for the next. It was clear from the initial comments which some local authority professionals made—perhaps even he to whom my noble friend spoke last night—that the idea of continuing this fallow period was attractive to them.
However, others readily accepted the Government's proposals for 12 monthly payments. The Scottish branch of CIPFA, for example, commenting on the Scottish Office paper on operational issues published early last year, suggested that the charge should be due in 12 monthly instalments. Therefore, I hope that, with that further explanation and the fact that we have considered the difficulties raised by my noble friend, he will at least study what I said before he decides to press his amendment to a Division.
Lord Burton: Certainly I shall study what my noble friend has said, but before we come to Report stage I hope that his officials will have discussions with the chief finance officers of the local authorities who will have to handle this matter. Part of my information came from some of them and they are not happy about the situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 234 to 240 not moved.]
2 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No.241:
Page 31, line 13, leave out paragraph 5 and insert—
("5.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, a levying authority may make arrangements with a housing body for the exercise by the housing body on behalf of the levying authority of any of the authority's functions under this Schedule.
(2) Arrangements under sub-paragraph (1) above may, without prejudice to the generality of that sub-paragraph—

(i) provide for the receipt, collection or recovery by the housing body of any amount for which a person is liable under section 18(3) of this Act;

(ii) in relation to the functions to be exercised by the housing body, provide that appeals under paragraph 3(a) above be to, and appeals under paragraph 3(b) above be from, the housing body;

(iii) provide as to the terms upon which, instalments by which and manner in which community charges are to be payable to and collected and recovered by the housing body.

(3) Arrangements under this paragraph for the exercise of functions under paragraph 7(1)(a) below may be made only with a district council.
(4) Every person by whom a community charge is payable to a housing body under arrangements under this paragraph shall pay it to the housing body in accordance with those arrangements.
(5) Arrangements under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be on such terms as may be agreed between the levying authority and the housing body or, failing agreement, as may be determined by the Secretary of State.
1156
(6) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a levying authority wish to make arrangements under sub-paragraph (1) above with a housing body but the housing body have not agreed to enter into them, he may, by regulations made after consultation with the levying authority and the housing body require the housing body to do so.").
The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 242:
Page 31, leave out line 13 and insert—
("5.—(l) Subject to the terms of any agreement between the levying authority and the housing authority it will be in order for—").
The noble Lord said: I shall take this amendment together with Amendment No. 243. I shall try to be brief in relation to this amendment. At the moment we are giving power to levy to the housing bodies etc. I can see the force of the argument in respect of people who have already been contacted for the collection of rent and rates, but it is a different matter collecting from other people who reside in the area. They may be people who are relations—sons, daughters, grandmothers, grandfathers—or even lodgers. Hitherto these people have had no contact with the housing body. Unless some special agreement has been reached with someone who represents them in some way, I think it would be quite wrong that those who reside in the dwellinghouse should not themselves be subject to collection by the housing authority itself. That should be a matter for the levying authority to sort out in another way. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I feel that Amendments Nos. 242 and 243 would remove much of the flexibility which described in relation to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Carnegy. They would restrict any power of the Secretary of State to resolve difficulties or disagreements over the arrangements provided for by levying authorities and housing bodies in relation to the collection of the personal community charge from the tenants of housing that is let by the housing bodies. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, feels that that is sensible.
The levying authorities and the housing bodies are just as likely to be unable to agree in relation to the arrangements to be made in respect of this category of community charge payers as they are in relation to community charge payers generally. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will understand that I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am certainly glad to withdraw the amendment for the sake of getting on with the business.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 243 not moved.]
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 31, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) In the case of moneys collected by a charitable organisation 50 per cent (or a higher percentage at the discretion of the levying authority) will be retained by the charitable organisation from the moneys thus collected and the balance will be forwarded to the levying authority.")
The noble Lord said: The case for this amendment is stated therein. It permits the levying authorities at their discretion to rebate charitable organisations to the extent of 50 per cent. or a higher percentage, as they see fit. There has been a good deal of discussion during our debate on other aspects of the Bill about how we treat charitable and well meaning organisations. There was a fair amount of discussion on the question of women's refuges, and the Government agreed to take back the matter of the obligation of women's refuges and their liability for community tax.
In this case we are looking at the organisations and not the occupants of organisations such as women's refuges. I should be happy to hear from the Minister why he feels that this discretionary power of the levying authority should not be granted in the case of charitable organisations. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has indicated, we discussed at an earlier stage the position of employees living in tied houses. This approach is a rather different one but it tackles the same question in that it proposes that charitable organisations housing employees rent free should be "housing bodies" in terms of paragraph 5 of Schedule 2, and should retain 50 per cent. of the personal community charges that they collect.
Certainly I can say to the noble Lord that it is an ingenious approach, but I am afraid that it is not as acceptable as its ingenuity might indicate.
I appreciate of course the intention of the amendments that charitable organisations which at present provide tied houses for employees rent and rates free should continue to meet the personal community charge liabilities of these employees but should not thereby be placed in any worse financial position than they are already. Although the amendments should obviously be seen against the background of an intention by the charity in question to pay the personal community charges of its employees in tied houses, I have to say that the amendment makes no specific provision for this; as it stands, therefore, it appears to give charities the right to retain a percentage of the money they would collect as housing bodies—and would indeed, in the absence of any specific restriction, allow that possibility. For that reason alone I do not think that I can accept the amendment.
Secondly, however, I am afraid that the amendment runs much too wide. It would make all charitable organisations housing employees rent-free into "housing bodies" in terms of the Bill. There must be many such charities, some employing only a very small number of people living in tied houses. The amendment would therefore greatly extend the number of "housing bodies" and would go well beyond the intention of the "housing body" provisions, which is that in appropriate cases public housing authorities should play some part in collecting the community charges of persons living in houses let by them.
I am afraid that as it stands the amendment would create a plethora of housing bodies which could only lead to administrative confusion. Even if that were not
1158
the case, it would not be right for the Committee to include in the Bill a provision affecting many such bodies without consultation with all those who may be affected. I can well imagine that many bodies would be affected by the amendments and would not be happy about being required to undertake that duty.
I have listened carefully, and I have given reasons why the Committee should not accept the amendments. The proposal must be seen against the intention of the charity to pay the personal community charges of its employees in tied houses. I hope that the noble Lord will be happy with that explanation.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am not being ingenious in trying to raise the subject about which I wish to speak at this late time. The Minister dealt with Amendment No. 244 and pointed out some of the difficulties, but I am sure that he realises that the whole matter is full of difficulties. Mention has been made of the problem of churches, manses and presbyteries, which sometimes have a number of people living in them. In the case of one or two Catholic presbyteries there may be seven, eight or 10 priests. Most of them have no income. I understand that under the present system rate relief is given to such premises.
Convents and abbeys—if that is still the right word—present a more serious problem. Large numbers of nuns or monks may live in them. At present they have certain privileges. I hope that the Minister will be able to look at this point, although I know that he may not be able to do so today. I do not think we have so far received an answer on it and this is the best time at which I can reinforce my appeal for a definition in respect of religious and other such organisations.
Lord Glenarthur: I shall reflect upon the noble Lord's words, especially as they connect with an earlier amendment. I should like to re-read what he and I said then. On their merits, the amendments are unacceptable.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton): I must apologise to the Committee. My only excuse, although perhaps it is more of a reason, is the change of the Chairman of these proceedings a few minutes ago. I am now advised that this amendment should not have been called and Amendment No. 245 should not be called when we come to it, because they are in conflict with Amendment No. 241 to which the Committee has already agreed. I owe an apology especially to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, but in the circumstances the best way out of this little difficulty is for him now gracefully to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I am much indebted to the Chairman for permitting me to move an amendment which was obviously out of order, because it enabled me to state a case which I hope is worthy of further consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked about religious organisations which would be affected. I accept that the amendment is rather widely and poorly drafted, but the Committee must appreciate that with the massive representations we

1159
have received on this Bill it is extremely difficult for part-time Members of this place to draft amendments appropriately.
I have taken note of what the Minister said, and in the circumstances and in view of the fact that it is out of order, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The next amendment is Amendment No. 246, which goes with Amendment No. 247. They have already been discussed. I understand that they are accepted.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendments Nos. 246 and 247:
Page 32, line 36, leave out ("personal")
Page 32, line 46, leave out from ("charges") to end of line
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 246 and 247.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom)The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom) moved Amendment No. 248:
Page 32, line 47, leave out ("recoverable") and insert ("recovered").
The noble and learned Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 249 to 255 and 271. The latter amendment introduces a new clause after Clause 30.
All these amendments relate to procedures for recovery of arrears of community charges. The relevant provisions relating to recovery procedures are presently set out in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Schedule 2. They are modelled on the present procedures for recovery of rates. That is normally done by the use of summary warrant, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy said earlier, though in some cases a decree may be obtained in an action of payment. Local authorities have considerable experience of using summary warrant procedures for the recovery of rates arrears and it seems eminently sensible that this expertise should be applied in relation to community charges.
The Committee has fairly recently considered the Debtors (Scotland) Bill which reforms the law relating to the enforcement of debts due under court orders in Scotland. It contains provisions applying its reforms to the procedures for recovering various types of debt including rates. The purpose of these amendments is to align the provisions of the present Bill as appropriate with those reformed procedures.
The amendments fall naturally into two categories: first, those which amend the basic recovery provisions contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Schedule 2 of this Bill; and secondly, those contained in the new clause which apply relevant provisions of the Debtors (Scotland) Bill to the system of community charges as it will exist after 1st April 1989.
With one exception, the amendments to Schedule 2 involve detailed drafting changes and the insertion of cross-references to ensure that the provisions of the schedule parallel those for the recovery of rates as reformed by the Debtors (Scotland) Bill and are there set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 4.
There is one amendment to which I would draw particular attention. That is Amendment No. 251. The amendment includes an earnings arrestment among the available diligences. This is a new procedure introduced by the Debtors (Scotland) Bill to provide a simpler, more effective form of earnings arrestment which may apply to more than one pay period and is in that Bill available for the recovery of arrears of rates.
The new clause contained in Amendment No. 271 makes amendments to relevant parts of the Debtors (Scotland) Bill itself. The general effect of these is to ensure that procedures and definitions relating to the recovery of rates are paralleled by those for the recovery of community charges. Just as with rates, time-to-pay orders and time-to-pay directions would not apply to community charge debts.
The amendments raise no new issues but simply apply to the community charge the reformed system of diligences that has already been before this Chamber in its consideration of the Debtors (Scotland) Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
2.15 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendments Nos. 249 to 255:
Page 33, line 3, at end insert ("accompanied by a certificate by them")
Page 33, line 18, at end insert ("in accordance with Schedule 5 to the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987")
Page 33, line 18, at end insert—
("(aa) an earnings arrestment")
Page 33, line 43, after ("below") insert ("and without prejudice to paragraphs 25 to 34 of Schedule 5 to the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987")
Page 33, line 46, leave out ("defender") and insert ("debtor")
Page 33, line 47. leave out ("any person") and insert ("the debtor")
Page 33, line 48, leave out ("that person") and insert ("the debtor")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Reduction of community charges]:
On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Wilson of Langside: As the Committee knows, Clause 22 gives effect to Schedule 3 of the Bill. As I read Schedule 3, it is just about the last straw. There are probably one or two more but this is the last straw in this Bill. It is a matter on which the Government are open to serious criticism.
I am aware that there has nearly always been a strain between local and central government. I know that that has been so in our country, and I am sure that it is so in many other countries. However, of late years, there has been a growing awareness that the strain between local and central government has gone beyond all bounds and that it is having a damaging effect on the work of government generally.
Against that background, it will be obvious to Members of the Committee that one important test for any reform of local government finance should be the

1161
extent to which it reduces the tension. The point was made during the Second Reading debate by those who oppose the Bill—all of us on this side—that far from reducing these strains and tensions so damaging to the whole body politic in this country, the Bill would add to them. We made this point quite clearly. Schedule 3 focuses upon this point because it was said that this Bill was to produce accountability and to free to some extent the working of local government. But with the operation of Schedule 3 the old situation is restored giving central government powers analogous to those which they already have.
The schedule states
"If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the total estimated expenses … of a local authority … are excessive and unreasonable, he may make and cause to be laid before the Commons House of Parliament a report proposing a reduction in the amount of the personal community charge".
Surely this provision flies in the face of what the Government have suggested would be the benefits which would flow from this Act. We will be back in the old position of straying between central and local government. We are all agreed that no one wants to encourage profligacy on the part of local authorities.
I remember 20 years ago when the government of which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and myself were members, introduced a Bill giving certain powers to central government. The powers were extended and built on by successive governments until the situation in which we are today existed. My point concerning this clause and Schedule 3 is that it becomes apparent that we are not moving forward in the direction that any sensible scheme for the reform of local government finance should have taken us. I therefore oppose the Motion that Clause 22 stand part of the Bill.
The Earl of Selkirk: I should like to raise a point which is entirely different from the point spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson. Is it desirable that schedules should become the principle part of a part of a Bill? This raises the very difficult question as to what should be in the Bill and what should be in the schedule. I have never heard this defined, but I have always regarded the Bill as containing the principle on which it acts and the schedules containing the mechanism by which it be done. However, I may be wrong.
The whole of Clause 21 is not so bad because most of the levying collection is simply a mechanism. However, Clause 22 includes a principle which is not incorporated in the Bill but in the schedule. I believe that principle should clearly be in the Bill, and the mechanism by which it should be carried out should he in the schedule. I am making an objection in principle that this is a bad way of presenting a Bill. I should like to give one reason for my objection. Many noble Lords when reading a Bill read the schedules quickly, partly because they are very complicated. We do not go into detail but we like to see the principle of the Bill quite clearly laid out in the clauses. This is not done here.
I say with great respect that I think it is a great mistake and it is setting a very bad precedent when we say in effect, "Please read the schedule if you want to know what it is all about". I think that this is quite
1162
wrong and I ask the noble Lord to consider the matter very carefully. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, said there was a principle, but the principle is not in the Bill; it is in the schedule. In so far as that principle is there it should be incorporated properly in the Act. I ask the noble Lord to consider these points because I think we are setting a precedent which is thoroughly bad.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I rise to support without qualification every single word that my noble friend Lord Selkirk has said. The question of principle appearing on the face of the Bill will arise in acute form as regards the governing principles of the regulation proposed under Clause 24. I shall deal with that on its merits at the appropriate time. But that in no way derogates from anything that my noble friend has said and what he has said is in my opinion of crucial importance.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I wholly agree with my two noble friends who have just spoken. The Bill reads very oddly. There is nothing in Clause 22 which specifies what it deals with. However, when one looks at the side note it indicates that it relates to the extremely important matter of the reduction of community charges.
My own view is that Ministers should have such a power. I do not suppose that the Members of the Committee opposite necessarily share that view. However, whatever view one takes, this is an important provision of the Bill and I agree very much with my noble friends Lord Selkirk and Lord Campbell of Alloway that it should be spelt out in the clause and that it should not simply be a clause giving force to a schedule.
I do not know whether this is an appropriate time to raise the matter. It probably is not because it will be dealt with on the Motion that the schedule stand part. But I should like as a preliminary observation to say that the other matter which I very much dislike is that the important power of approving the report by the Secretary of State, which will have the effect of reducing the charges, appears to be confined to another place and this House is excluded. When we come to that point I hope that I shall be given some explanation of that.
Lord Stallard: Strange as it may seem I wish to support the Members of the Committee opposite who are raising the importance of the schedule. I must confess that I have a foot in both camps. I am considering the matter from the Scottish point of view and I am also much concerned about the Bill that we have been threatened with as regards England and Wales.
If I read the Bill correctly, Clause 22, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has just mentioned, does nothing except refer to Schedule 3. Nowhere in the body of the Bill is there reference to the current system of rate-capping but it is referred to in the schedule. That is a very important principle and when the English Bill is drafted the question of rate-capping will be of major importance. Schedule 3 provides for the redetermination of personal community charges if the Secretary of State believes there are local authorities

1163
whose total estimated expenses are excessive and unreasonable. Those are important principles and they are not stated anywhere in the Bill except in Schedule 3. That is an extremely important point. We cannot develop it now but we have not heard the end of that principle or of the kind of powers that the Secretary of State has been given as a result of those paragraphs in the schedule.
The Earl of Perth: I have listened with great interest to the other Members of the Committee who have spoken. Perhaps it will not surprise the Minister to know that I am very much in agreement with what they are saying. Something which is as important as this should be in the Bill and not in the schedule.
As the question was in a sense raised originally by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, I say to him that something like this provision must be in the Bill in some form or another. He asked what would happen if a local authority was profligate. It is necessary that there should be some defence against that. With those two comments I leave it to others to continue the debate.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I too should like to make exactly the same comments as the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I think that the words used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, were, "No one wants to encourage profligacy". Those words are crucial in any reorganisation that we are undertaking. There must be back-up powers because we know of some very profligate local authorities in Scotland.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: It is quite obvious that the format of the Bill is wrong. Principles have been breached, as is agreed on all sides of the Committee. I suppose that we might lose sight of the principle, because a bad principle can lead to a bad format and the confusion caused by this Bill could easily achieve that.
No one wants to encourage profligacy at all, but I thought that the whole point of the Bill was to spread accountability. If one is to spread accountability, one must allow people to be accountable. However, the Government do not believe that it will, so they have added the rate-capping clause, which seems to negate the whole purpose of the Bill. Therefore the principle is wrong as well as the format.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not think that there is any doubt that it is very unusual indeed to have such principles encompassed in a schedule. We have been moving along this line for a long time—since about 1979—and it springs from legislation that the Government said started in about 1948: the right of the Government to interfere in excessive expenditure. That has changed its meaning and also the purpose for which governments originally included it in Bills has changed. It is like an old woman being proud of a brush, saying that it has been in the family for 60 years and has had only three heads and two shafts. The whole thing is different and I have been in most of the arguments about this kind of thing.
1164
We had guidelines and we had guidelines suddenly becoming statutory. We had rate-capping and the Government were always finding a new gap which had to be closed. They are doing that within this schedule. Most of the new departures were contained in the Bills and not in the schedules. To deal with it in this way is quite wrong. I do not know why, but I believe that people pay less attention to schedules. It used to be very nice for the Government at Committee stage when all the attention was paid to the Bill and fewer people paid attention to the schedule. This may teach us to treat things slightly differently. From that point of view I think that it is wrong.
The Bill is divided into various parts and there is no reason why the parliamentary procedures in relation to the reduction of community charges—That is slightly misleading. It is the Government's decision to intervene in the charge set by the local authority, not the local authority reducing the charge. There is a whole procedure which takes place before that happens and in which the local authority plays very little part.
I do not know whether the Government can act now. I am surprised, because the Bill was dealt with under guillotine procedure in another place and that may have something to do with it. I acknowledge the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and equally the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. Who and what is excessive? Whatever charge is fixed will be considered by many people to be excessive. It depends on one's outlook on government services. If one is prepared to reduce for the sake of reducing and forgets that by reducing one is not sweeping the streets, that is not doing the job that local government has been given by statute to do.
Local government is not doing anything unusual, but it is doing what we tell it to do. I see Members of the House here who in Bill after Bill are prepared to place more burdens on local authorities, but when it comes to paying for those burdens they will say no. The Government will interfere and say that it is excessive and unreasonable. I agree that the provision should not appear in the schedule; it should be included in the main part of the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Nothing that I said would I retract, but I wholly support the main principle of this Bill.
The Earl of Selkirk: The noble Lord asked what is excessive payment. I am informed that in the Lothian region the word "economy" is a bad word. That is what I mean by saying that some regard for excessive payments should be made.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: As these references are obviously being directed at me by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, I consider that a 32 per cent. increase in a year for the Lothian region's charge is excessive when inflation is running at 4 and 5 per cent.
Lord Ross of Marnock: This is a very interesting argument, but it does not have an awful lot to do with what we are supposed to be discussing. I remind the noble Lord, if he is interested in local government finances, that in 1979 the Government paid 68 per

1165
cent. of the relevant expenditure. Today they are paying 56·7 per cent. in Scotland. They are paying even less in England, by the way. That is the cause of the crisis in local government finance. It was the cause of the panic in Perth. No doubt the noble Lord was there. I am sorry that the man who told him how to soothe things down—the Leader of the House—is not here. That is the trouble and that is why expenses are considered excessive. It explains why people trying to carry out the duties laid upon them are shoved off into this particular schedule.
Lord Glenarthur: It seems that we are encompassing in this clause-stand-part debate very nearly three different debates. The first is whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. I shall come to that in a moment. Another concerns the merits that are contained in the schedule which refers to it and the third concerns the point which was made by my noble friend Lord Selkirk, supported by my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Campbell of Alloway and by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that the provision should be part of the Bill and not in any sense removed from it and put into a schedule when it contains information of great importance and incorporates, if not absolute principles, at least a certain amount of detail relating to a new matter, that is to say, community charges.
I very much note those points. I should like to consider them but in the context of the fact that the schedule is virtually a re-enactment of the provisions of Section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 to make it apply to the legislation that we are now considering. There is absolutely no intention on the part of the Government to try to dodge the issue by placing in the schedule something which otherwise might appear in more or less precisely the same form in the main part of the Bill. I assure my noble friends that there was no thought whatsoever on the part of the Government of trying to evade their responsibilities, to confuse or to confound in any way what others might feel ought to have been a proper part of the substantive legislation, the substantive clauses of the Bill. I hope my noble friends will consider that.
Having said that, I shall try to find for my noble friends some precedents which may indicate that this is not a wholly unusual procedure. My noble friend Lord Selkirk shakes his head as if to indicate that it is doubtful whether I shall ever find such a precedent. Perhaps the burden can be upon me to do that. I shall look at it. I realise that my noble friends with their experience have brought to the attention of your Lordships a matter of great importance. However, I hope they will accept from me that there was absolutely no suggestion of trying to avoid discussion of this provision or of trying to push it into such a position that it might be skated over by putting it in the schedule. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter looks as though he wishes to intervene.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I merely wanted to make it clear that so far as I am concerned I was not suggesting for a moment that there was any intention on the part of the Government to conceal what was being done. Indeed, I went out of my way to express the view that I thought what was being done was right. However,
1166
since the Minister has invited me to intervene perhaps I may say on the question of precedent that he has quoted a very devastating one against himself. In the 1966 Act those similar provisions were enacted as Section 5, as he has just told us. I suggest that we should follow that precedent.
Lord Glenarthur: There is always a pitfall somewhere in these matters. I shall look at my noble friend's point. To return to that once more, the fact that it is in Section 5 means that it was not really necessary to put in a whole new section in the Bill. But perhaps we had better not pursue the argument any further.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: That is wise.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I may now respond to the theme of Clause 22 and answer the question about why we need the selective action at all, which is very much the substance of Clause 22. We need it under the new system of local government finance for just the same reason that we need it now: it is to protect local taxpayers from the extremes of local authority behaviour. That is precisely what has been said.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, raised a number of points and made a number of claims which I feel bound to deal with. First, he asked: what is excessive? Excessiveness is carefully measured by objective criteria based on a client group of needs assessment and also on comparisons with other similar authorities.
As for the implication that central government interference is something new or something that has developed at an unprecedented pace in recent years, I really cannot accept that for one moment, because of course all governments have taken an interest in local government expenditure, including the government of which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, was part. Perhaps when he comes to consider the matter of profligacy he will remember the reductions which were forced on local authorities as a result of the IMF negotiations in, I think, 1976.
It is true that processes have been refined, but those processes have been improved so that under this Government the penalties attach much more directly to the authorities which incur the overspending that undoubtedly happens from time to time. I readily accept there is room for argument about the circumstances in which these powers are to be exercised, but it appears that the party opposite wish the basic power to be retained. I acknowledge that others are adopting a position of high principle that there should be no interference whatsoever in the affairs of local authorities. I hope that the local taxpayers of Edinburgh, and perhaps Lothian in particular—Lothian rates are going up by 30 per cent. this year—will take note of the views that have been expressed.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, suggested, the Committee will be aware that one of the main purposes of the Bill is to strengthen local accountability. One might well therefore suggest that it is inconsistent to include in the Bill a power to intervene in local decisions. Certainly we confidently expect that the Bill's provisions will bring about a great

1167
improvement in the accountability of authorities to their electorates and in particular in regard to their financial decisions. That seems to be something which is to be wholly supported by at least some of us, if not all, on this side of the Committee. But no government can be expected simply to throw away the safety net altogether, and I am surprised that noble Lords opposite feel that they might be prepared to throw away a safety net upon which they might one day have to rely.
Local authorities' financial decisions have an important economic impact, both at the local level through the rates and the community charges at which they strike, and at the macroeconomic level through the total amount of expenditure which they incur. Past Labour governments have found it necessary to pursue tight policies on government expenditure, including local authority expenditure, and they too would want to have the control necessary to delivery such a policy. They would also want to be able to respond to the situation where a local authority had placed a quite excessive burden on its local taxpayers. These are the very powers that are contained in Clause 22 and Schedule 3.
Let me emphasise that it is the Government's intention to use these powers only in the last resort. In the past, the record shows that the Secretary of State has taken action. The noble Lord opposite laughs, but it must be remembered that action had to be taken as a result of the IMF negotiations, which caused local authorities to be put in a position which otherwise they would not have been put in. The noble Lord's party had to deal with that.
The Secretary of State has not done anything other than guard against excessive and unreasonable expenditure. He has not undertaken these tasks out of malice or with particular relish, but he has done so because they have been necessary. No one would be more pleased than the Government if the new selective action powers were never needed. If that were to be the case, what harm would have been done by including them in the Bill? The mere existence of the powers themselves constitutes an important constraint on authorities' behaviour.
On the other hand, if the powers were dropped from the Bill and individual authorities struck excessively high community charges, how would the government of the day explain to the irate local taxpayers why they had removed this protection from them? No government can give up last resorts such as those contained in Clause 22 and Schedule 3. I sincerely hope that noble Lords opposite will understand the force of that argument and accept that the clause and the schedule ultimately should stand part of the Bill.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: It seems to me that the Government's actions are based on what the authority in East Lothian and the Lothians is doing this year under the present system, and that they give no credit at all to the new accountability. To use the arguments of the present day about the future appears to me to be confusing. There is a difference in principle between the two matters. For the Government to put in the
1168
rate-capping powers which exist today to deal with councils such as Lothian, and to say at the same time that accountability is all and that it will improve the conduct of local authorities, is totally illogical. That is why we oppose this clause.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Is it right that my noble friend the Minister is giving consideration as to whether the principles will be extracted from the schedule, leaving the machinery in the schedule with a view to altering the structure of the Bill; or is he not?
Lord Glenarthur: What I said to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and my noble friend Lord Selkirk was that I would certainly consider the points that have been made. But I am not suggesting that I will necessarily come back with a whole series of amendments on Report which encompass Schedule 3 into suitable clauses of the Bill. What I have said—and it appears that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter beseeches me to take the argument no further—is that the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966, which this schedule largely re-enacts, is precisely that—a reenactment. Therefore there is no need, in the eyes of the draftsman or of myself, in my capacity as being responsible for the Bill, or the eyes of anybody else, to put it into the Bill in any other way. What I indicated to my noble friends was that I would take away their points and look at them, but without a commitment to come back in due course.
The Earl of Selkirk: I was not suggesting for a moment that the Government were trying deliberately to hide part of the clause. But I do say that this is a fundamental breach of good drafting. I want to put that over to the Government. They are wrong in saying, "Look at the schedule, old boy". The noble Lord is now quoting 1965; in a short time he will be quoting 1987 to show what the drafting was in this year. That is the point which I make and I shall be glad if the noble Lord sees that the draftsmen understand that this form of approach is viewed with regret and, if I may say so, disfavour by the Committee.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Hear, hear!
Lord Glenarthur: I hope that my noble friend is not under the impression that I do not take what he says extremely seriously. Perhaps I may also say to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who referred particularly to the question of excluding the Committee from approving, in Schedule 3, the paragraph which is headed Parliamentary proceedings for reduction of personal community charges, that that is evidently a matter of the privilege of another place, because it relates to financial matters which, by custom, are not debated. Perhaps I may also look at that matter. But I believe that to be an established principle.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to say that the principle is far from clear. I touched on it at the earlier stage by indicating that I thought it might arise on the Motion that the schedule stand part. If my noble friend wishes to debate that matter now, I shall be obliged.
Lord Glenarthur: I am not particularly keen to debate it now. However, if my noble friend raises the matter later, I shall endeavour to deal with it then.
Lord Hughes: The noble Lord having found, in his reference to Section 5 of the 1966 Act, what he later described as a pitfall following what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, had to say about it, now seeks to justify the schedule by saying that it is just a reenactment of what is in the 1966 Act. However, what I took from what he said is that the principle of seeking to have a check on local authority expenditure did not start in 1966. Therefore, what was in the Bill in 1966 would not be the first time that this matter came up. If it was necessary in 1966 to put into the Bill something which had been acted upon for years before, that is an added argument for having it in the present Bill.
Having said that, of course those of us who support the principle that the matter should he in this Bill do it with different ideas of what will happen in due course when it appears there. As my noble friend Lord Ross has made perfectly clear, if it becomes part of the Bill we may still he objecting to the form which it then takes. However, I think that everyone who has spoken, with the exception of the Minister, is agreed that something as important as this matter should be part of the Bill, whatever we think of the Bill. Therefore, we are agreed on the principle but not necessarily on what the principle then entails.
Lord Wilson of Langside: We have had a full discussion. I am sorry if the gravamen of my attack on the substance of the schedule was not expressed with sufficient clarity to convince the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson. I shall not try to remedy that now. In view of what has been said from all sides of the Committee, I shall not withdraw my Motion that Clause 22 should not stand part of the Bill.
2.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 56.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Beaverbrook, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Beloff, L.

Dundee, E.

Blake, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Blyth, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Erne, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Faithfull, B.

Burton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Butterworth, L.

Fortescue, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gray, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Greenway, L.

Carnock, L.

Gridley, L.

Chelwood, L.

Haig, E.

Coleraine, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Harvington, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hesketh, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Hooper, B.

1170

Hylton-Foster, B.

Portland, D.

Killearn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Kimball, L.

Reigate, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Renton, L.

Knollys, V.

Richardson, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rodney, L.

Layton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Long, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lothian, M.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Manchester, D.

Selkirk, E.

Margadale, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Somers, L.

Stockton, E.

Merrivale, L.

Strathspey, L.

Mersey, V.

Swansea, L.

Milverton, L.

Swinton, E.

Molson, L.

Terrington, L.

Morris, L.

Teynham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Trafford, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Vickers, B.

Perth, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Wolfson, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Attlee, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Basnett, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L. [Teller.]

Briginshaw, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mais, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Molloy, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Clancarty, E.

Parry, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Falkender, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Galpern, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seear, B.

Gregson, L.

Serota, B.

Grimond, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Simon, V.

Hughes, L.

Stallard, L.

Hunt, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

Kagan, L.

Underhill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

White, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and clause agreed to accordingly.
Schedule 3 [Reduction of community charges]:
3.1 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 255A to 255G not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: We had some preliminary comments earlier on one aspect of Schedule 3, and that is the aspect under which the important power to approve or disapprove of a decision by the Secretary of State to make a report and overrule a local authority is, under the schedule, confined to another place. Your Lordships' House is apparently completely excluded from any authority in that regard.

1171
This matter, as my noble friend the Minister indicated, is rather on the frontier of the relations between the two Houses, but I should not like to let this go without a question and perhaps indeed a challenge. It is perfectly true that on matters of taxation your Lordships' House plainly has no power: that goes back to the Parliament Act 1911. However, although this is a matter affecting finance—obviously so, because it affects the finance of local authorities—it is not, as I understand it, a matter relating to the imposition of a charge on the taxpayer. Therefore, it is not the kind of matter which comes within the purview of a Finance Bill. It is the exercise of a power, an important power, in the Secretary of State to control the excesses of local authorities.
I know that there are two views in your Lordships' House on whether that power should exist and on how it should be exercised. I am not at this point concerned with that difference of view. However, I am a little concerned about whether, by excluding this House entirely from the power to control the Secretary of State in this matter and leaving it entirely to another place, we are not taking a further step in the erosion of the authority of this House in regard to general matters and in relation to another place.
On the merits of the matter, I have no doubt at all that the procedures of your Lordships' House enable matters of this kind—and they are important matters—to be discussed. I think I can say without disrespect to another place, where I served for 27 years, that we have rather more time at our disposal than is generally the case in another place, as well as the enormous experience of Members of your Lordships' House in all quarters, which can be brought to bear on such matters.
I am sure that since I raised the point—and I did so deliberately in advance in order to give my noble friend the opportunity so to do—he has been collecting precedents. When he goes into precedents I am sure we shall want to consider them. However, in the absence of those precedents, which he will no doubt be good enough to inform us about, it seems to me that this is not one of those obviously financial or taxation matters which are clearly, and have been since 1911, the prerogative of another place. It lies somewhere in the grey area of the relations between the two Houses. For my part, I should not like to let anything of that kind go through without challenge or examination.
It may well be that my noble friend will be able to show that this comes within a well settled area of the relationship between the two Houses. He may well be able to do so. At the moment I do not challenge that. However, I feel that the Committee should look carefully at each such provision to make sure that the general pressure from another place to increase its powers at the expense of this Chamber does not go without notice.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: There is another point of view on this question. It may be tested without consulting precedent at all. The veto of this Chamber would in fact have very important financial consequences and in those circumstances I am not sure that that would be entirely constitutional, quite apart from the question of precedent.
Lord Grimond: I hope that the Minister will not rely too much upon precedent. In the discussions on this Bill I think that we have already learnt that precedents can be extremely dangerous guidelines. I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has raised a point which merits discussion. Like him, I do not wish to trespass upon the powers of another place over taxation but this matter seems to me to go beyond the simple question of taxation. The schedule speaks of "excessive and unreasonable" proposals by the local authorities, which are subjective words. So far as I can see, it does not insist that they should be defined, if they can be defined, in entirely financial terms.
As I understand it the Minister concerned will certainly take into account the economic situation of the country and the economic justification for the proposals, but he is not debarred from taking into account other considerations, particularly the purposes for which the money is to be spent. Again, I do not want to go into the rights and wrongs of the whole schedule.
I have grave doubts about giving Ministers this power. In any case to my mind on the face of the schedule the power is not confined simply to a financial examination. It goes wider than that. Therefore I should have thought that this Chamber at least had the right to ask to be considered.
There is one other point that I should like to raise. I have found during my brief sojourn in this place that Bills, orders and so forth not unnaturally are given much more consideration here. The whole of Parliament is so overloaded with legislation that a great deal of it, orders, regulations etc, goes through without proper discussion, as everyone would admit. I should have thought that this is the kind of matter that ought to be discussed as widely as possible because it has extremely important constitutional as well as financial implications. It is also extremely controversial and may cause great harm to both central government and local authorities. Therefore, I hope that the Government will not rest entirely on whatever precedents they can find and that they will take note of the points that have been raised.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as to whether this matter should be debarred from discussion in this Chamber is very important. If he looks at Clause 29, he will be interested to discover, as will the Committee, that in the whole of the Bill there is not a single rule or regulation that has to be drawn up by the Secretary of State that will come to this Chamber, because they all come under the annulment procedure resolution of either House. We seldom see them, particularly if the other place decides to have a prayer. It is difficult for us to accept this proposal. I have tabled an amendment to Clause 29. It does not cover this point. I was going to withdraw it because we can tighten up the amendment at the next stage of the Bill. That will give us the opportunity properly to debate the subject on report.
Lord Glenarthur: My noble friend is clearly concerned about this aspect of Schedule 3, paragraph 1(1). My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has raised matters which may go much wider than the schedule

1173
or even the Bill. It would be wrong of me to attempt to fall into the trap, which my noble friend claims I might have done earlier, by embarking on any suggestion of precedent. I think that I had better take this away and look at it. It is clearly something which was put into the schedule in good faith because it was believed to have been a matter of Commons privilege in the way that I described earlier when we spoke to Clause 22 stand part.
I believe that that is probably what the Committee would wish me to do. I undertake to look at that matter and to come back to validate my claim or to approach it in another way.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged to my noble friend. That seems to be the right way to handle the matter.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Replacement of rate support grants by revenue support grants]:
[Amendment No. 255H not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Revenue support grants]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 255J:
Page 37, line 12, at end insert ("after having regard to current rates of spending, changes in demand (for example, demographic changes), development needs and levels of pay and price increases").
The noble Lord said: Schedule 4 deals with revenue support grants and the determination of aggregate amount. That falls into almost the same position as the last schedule. The schedule deals with what can be left in and what cannot. I am not happy about it. It states:
"'relevant expenditure', in relation to a financial year, means the total expenditure … in respect of that year as estimated by the Secretary of State but, in making that estimate, he may leave out of account such categories of expenditure in respect of that year as he may determine".
The Secretary of State may determine what will be left out. It is wrong that he should have the power to decide what items will be contained in it. It should be the local authority's understanding of what is total expenditure and what of that total expenditure should be considered relevant. Relevant means for grant purposes. Grant purposes will be considerably different under the new system. It will still be called RSG, but instead of that meaning rate support grant, it will mean revenue support grant. I do not know whether the Minister wants to make a point on that.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord seeks with this amendment to specify matters that the Secretary of State should take into account in determining the estimated aggregate amount of revenue support grant payable to local authorities for any financial year. As drafted at present, the Bill makes no prescription on this matter. In this respect, it does not follow the earlier legislation governing rate support grant—the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966. That Act sets
1174
out in some detail what matters the Secretary of State shall take into consideration before determining the amount of rate support grant, and the list includes such matters as fluctuation in the demand for services, the need to develop services, and expected increases in prices and in pay. In a more modest way the noble Lord is seeking to reinstate some of those obligations on the Secretary of State.
The main reason for not covering this ground in the Bill as published has been quite simply our desire for simplification. Clearly, in determing the estimated aggregate amount of revenue support grant for any year, the Secretary of State must recognise that he is operating in the real world. Of course, his real world considerations will include the requirements of national economic policy and affordability to the taxpayer. But they will also include a realistic assessment of the pressures on local authorities, the price and wage increases they are likely to experience in the course of the financial year in question, new demands likely to be placed upon them, and so on. There will be many considerations to be taken into account. If that is the concern—which it seems to me it is—which lies behind the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, I can give him a ready assurance that all of these matters will be taken into account.
But we cannot necessarily predict now, as we legislate, all the matters that may be relevant in respect of future financial years, and it seems unnecessary and probably unhelpful to specify only some of them. Indeed, on a strict interpretation, it might be presumed in the future that if such matters arc specified on the face of the legislation, then the Secretary of State would not be permitted to take into account other considerations which may be highly relevant in future years, but which are not mentioned in legislation. I think that it is better not to attempt such a specification. I hope that that provides the reasoning which the noble Lord is seeking.
Lord Ross of Marnock: This specification is already there in statute. Admittedly it was not in the schedule but in the Bill. Why is there the departure here? It makes it far easier for the Secretary of State; he has all the flexibility in the world. If government place the responsibility on him, he is the person who will determine it. Local government will say, "He will fix it." There is already sufficient criticism of the way these matters work but if the power is to be taken entirely without restriction by the Secretary of State, people will say more and more that government are laying down the law and that there might as well not be a local authority.
However, I see that the Government are not going to move. I see that many Members would like to move, but they are getting too comfortable on this Thursday afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 255K not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 255L:
Page 38, line 9, at end insert ("which will be the subject of subsequent primary legislation")
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers again to the words "as he determines". There should be

1175
some indication in statute for the Secretary of State to use whatever consideration he thinks appropriate and to give authorities advance notice of the factors that will be taken into account in determining RSG. It is sad that I should have to say this because there is so much prescription already in the Bill. But we are giving the Secretary of State the power so to prescribe. At least when he does so the local authorities will know exactly what is intended. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: The transition to the new grant arrangements could give rise to significant changes in grant entitlement for individual authorities. This is particularly likely to be so in the case of district councils. The purpose of paragraph 2(4) is therefore to provide what has been referred to as a "safety net". Thus, the Secretary of State will look at the grant entitlement as calculated under the earlier provisions of paragraph 2. If it appears that the changes are unacceptable, then the provisions of paragraph 2(4) will come into play. I understand that this kind of transitional arrangement is well understood by local authorities and their finance officials, under the present rate support grant arrangements. For example, the changeover several years ago to the calculation of public expenditure guidelines and of grant entitlement through the method of "client group assessment" has also produced significant changes in entitlement to grant, by comparison with the earlier methods of assessment, based on historical patterns of spend. Various devices have therefore been used to dampen the effects of change and to make the changes more gradual.
It seems inappropriate that such matters of detailed distribution of revenue support grant should be the subject of prescription and order. There could also be practical difficulties, as the factors to be taken into account could change from year to year, and will not be apparent until the main calculations of grant apportionment, under the earlier sub-paragraphs of paragraph 2 of the Schedule have been undertaken. The interpolation at this stage of the need to prepare, table and debate an order could be very disruptive.
It may be worth pointing out to the noble Lord, that all the Secretary of State's functions under paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 4 are to be performed only after consultation with associations of local authorities—in effect CoSLA. This is provided for in paragraph 3 of the Schedule. I would expect that the safety netting arrangements, and particular safety netting proposals in respect of any financial year, will be an important matter to be covered in consultation with CoSLA. It would certainly be the Government's intention that this should be so.
With that assurance, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 256:
Before Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
("Reduced charge for crofters.
The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, modify the provisions of this Act so that persons aged 18 or over who are solely or mainly resident within dwellinghouses occupied—

(a) by a crofter or cottar within the meaning of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955, or by a person to whom subsection (6) of section 22 of the said Act applies, or

(b) in connection with any agricultural lands and heritages situated within the counties of which that Act applies, being lands and heritages the area of which does not exceed one hundred acres or the rent of which does not exceed £100 per annum, and which are occupied by the owner or tenant thereof,

shall be liable to pay 50 per cent. (or such lesser percentage as may be determined) of the amount of the personal community charge to be imposed by each local authority under the terms of section 9 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move this amendment which deals with the Highlands area. Long before my grandfather's and father's time, and during my lifetime, people have been trying to alleviate the plight of the Highlands. In the crofting counties we have the Crofters (Scotland) Act which went a long way towards preserving the population in the Highlands, and enabling them to follow the traditional way of life.
In 1956 the crofting counties had a certain amount of alleviation when they had a reduction of 50 per cent. on the calculation of the rateable value of their croft houses, which was a considerable concession. This concession is now swept away by the new Bill. I do not believe that the Government desire to punish the poor of the Highlands in this way.
On a basis of two persons per house it will cost the Highlands an extra £1·3 million. In one area a calculation shows that there are 2·78 persons per house, which would make it considerably more. That is an enormous amount of money over the Highlands crofting area. The original concession was given because of the high cost of transport, the high level of unemployment, the low level of wages and the high cost of food. All these factors apply today.
A Scotsman knows that whether in London, a small city or a big city, the highest cost of a basket of food is always in a Highlands village. Without this amendment we would be taking a very retrograde step especially as we have had considerable success with the Highlands Board and many government measures in keeping population in the Highlands. The amendment asks for a liability of:
"50 per cent. (or such lesser percentage as may be determined)".
of the charge. It seems to be against all policy to put up the cost of living in the Highlands. That is all I have to say at the moment. However, I should very much like to hear what the Minister has to say and I am certain that he must be sympathetic.
Lord Grimond: I confirm what my noble friend says about the cost of living in the Highlands. Certainly in respect of transport and especially food it is higher than in the South. It could also be said that in parts of the Highlands people do not enjoy many of the services which exist in the South.
However, I wish to remark upon some comments that were made in an earlier debate on this matter. I

1177
can only speak of the crofters in Shetland and in Orkney. There are very few in Orkney, so what I shall say chiefly affects those in Shetland. Earlier it was suggested that nowadays crofters often have other occupations as well as crofting and that therefore they may not be so very different from other people and may be rather richer than they used to appear. I agree that they often have other occupations. Indeed, if they did not they could hardly live entirely off the crofts. However, I wish to emphasise that in the area that I know, which is Shetland—there may be rich people who have taken crofts further south in the Highlands—many if not most of the crofters look to the croft as the principal mainstay of their family. If they have other jobs they are not usually very well paid and they sometimes incur considerable costs in reaching them. Very often they are employed on the roads or in the case of girls, in shops.
The amount of income that crofters obtain outside crofting is often exaggerated. The point is that if rich crofters exist there is no reason why they should not pay the charge. If there are such people I accept that they should pay. However, the general run of crofter is not rich and it would be rather unfair suddenly to impose a large increase in local taxation on him. Therefore, I hope that the Government will give consideration to that and that they will not entirely accept that most crofters—at any rate those whom I know—are no longer really crofters and are comparatively well off and look to other sources of income entirely. That would not be true.
The Earl of Selkirk: I should like to support in general terms what the noble Lords, Lord Mackie and Lord Grimond, have said. I recognise that the position of the crofter is difficult. As my noble friend said, crofters do all kinds of jobs. Indeed one was even Speaker of the House of Commons not so long ago. It is difficult to outline them but the special position of crofters stands very differently from that of other people. However, it is a form of life which is very well worth preserving.
This is a delicate situation and I hesitate to say how it should be handled, but I respectfully ask the Government to look at it carefully and ensure that this Bill, devised for a totally different purpose, does not destroy the crofting traditions. I am talking mostly of the Outer Hebrides as I do not know much about Orkney and Shetland. In the Outer Hebrides there is a very strong tradition and it is quite distinct from the tradition elsewhere. It needs careful handling and we must trust the Government to ensure the continuation of this worthwhile form of life.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Gray: While I am sympathetic to the spirit of the amendment, I find the words as they are printed on the Marshalled List unacceptable. I shall direct my remarks to paragraph (a) in particular, but in passing I mention that as paragraph (b) is worded, I would receive a 50 per cent. rebate of my community charge.
As has already been pointed out, crofting is a valuable part of the fabric of the Highland way of life, As such, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk said, its essentials are as worth sustaining as they were 30 years
1178
ago when the 1956 Rating and Valuation Act was passed. Parliament decided that support for crofting should include a 50 per cent. rebate of local authority rates. The 1976 Crofting Reform Act extended that relief to a croft house purchased after 10th June 1976. Special cases can always be pleaded and the governments are always wary of a knock-on effect. But surely crofters have a unique case. What is more, they are currently receiving partial relief from local taxation, but they are paying it.
It would be competent for one Act to repeal another, but surely it does not follow that, because the name and nature of a tax which raises particular funds for particular services are altered, an existing rebate applying to the predecessor tax should be automatically and entirely forfeited. I urge my noble friend Lord Glenarthur to recognise that the facts and precedent establish a clear case for at least some selective rebate.
I should like to turn to the reasons for my disagreement with the amendment as drafted. Paragraph (a) would catch up in its embrace many who by no stretch of the imagination deserve a rebate. My patch of ground in Argyll is completely surrounded by crofting land. I have crofting tenants, among them several valued friends. However, that does not mean that I survey the crofting scene through rose-tinted glasses. I am aware of the anomalies and abuses.
My noble friend Lord Glenarthur pointed out the other day that some registered crofters follow lucrative trades and professions. On the other hand, I know that he will be the first to acknowledge that there are crofters who, even though they work hard on their land, could not survive unless they had alternative employment.
I could detail many other differences, but the point is made. However, germane to this discussion are the differences enjoyed in terms of local authority services. As we all know, some crofting communities enjoy hardly any yet others have mains water, sewerage and even street lighting.
I hope that my noble friend may be interested in another difference and anomaly within the system. I think it best if I explain by taking an example from real life. Three registered crofters live within a stone's throw of each other in their croft houses. One, who incidentally paid rates of 7s 6d in 1955, enjoys a 50 per cent. rebate and will this year pay £444. The two neighbours will pay rates of £971 and £712 respectively. They receive no rebate. That is because Strathclyde regional council uses a power which my noble friend is about to repeal. It is contained in Section 7(4)(b) of the 1956 Act. It denies a right to rebate in the case of a crofter who derives the majority of his income from some trade or employment other than crofting. I do not imagine that such a system would exactly fit, and I doubt whether it would go far enough or wide enough to meet all the cases that will be posed in respect of the community charge. However, perhaps my noble friend could take it as a starting point for exploration.
I know that he recognises that there are parts of the Highlands and Islands where crofting is the way of life. Elsewhere we know crofting townships are important as the core of wider communities which have formed

1179
around them. Much is at stake. I hope my noble friend may be able to respond to this debate in a similar spirit to that displayed in the approach to the help for the Gaelic language recently announced by his and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I hope my noble friend the Minister will not be able to accept this amendment for the point of principle and the tailpiece. There is neither a fixed percentage rebate nor is there a graduated rebate according to ability to pay, but a maximum 50 per cent. arbitrary percentage fixed, subject to a graduation under 50 per cent. This is a complex principle and a good deal of justification would be needed for it to be carried into the Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend's last intervention we had a very romantic kind of run round the Highlands. I am sure noble Lords who visit the Highlands from time to time were feeling quite homesick for the experience. It sounded as we spoke as though the Highlands were very different from any other part of Scotland and that crofting in 1987 was totally different from farming a small farm in another part of Scotland. There was a massive bit of special pleading.
I know the history of the reduction in rates for crofters. When it happened it was fully justified, but in the last few years the whole position has changed enormously. The European Community pours money into less favoured areas compared with what it does in other parts of Britain. Large sums of money go to the Hebrides. A certain amount—although the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, will tell me it is less—goes to Shetland, a lot to the Highland counties. Farmers in the Highlands, crofters, have been recipients of many grants and that will continue. In addition, the Highlands and Islands Development Board provisions, in all sorts of ways, as the Committee well knows, favour that part of Scotland. The Manpower Services Commission has had many schemes and continues to have them on small farms in the Highlands and particularly in the Outer Hebrides.
The position has changed. I have said in a previous debate on the Bill that I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, considers that small farmers in Perthshire and the Borders—very much so in the Borders, in Dumfries and Galloway; farmers to whom the criteria that apply here apply, who make farming their way of life and who are having a very difficult time—should be treated differently from the crofters. Crofting is a magnificent way of life. Of course it is, and we want to keep the crofters there. It will be difficult for a number of people to make adjustments to the new arrangements but I cannot see why the crofters should not be able to adjust in the way that other farmers will adjust.
I hope that this amendment will not be accepted. I hope we shall not consider that crofters in 1987 arc less advantaged than many other farmers, some of whom live near where I do. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and I know some of them well, and there are others I am sure we both know in other parts of Scotland. It seems to me that this amendment should not be accepted by the Committee.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I mentioned crofters on the Second Reading of this Bill. I feel I must say something at this stage. I may say that I find great difficulty with this particular amendment, coming from the Borders, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy has said. I should find it very difficult to go up into the Border glens and say to those who are not very well off, "You are not being treated as the crofters are going to be treated in the Highlands in the crofting communities". When we talk about Shetland, the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, knows much more about the area than I do. However, my experience is that the Shetland fund has come in extremely useful for those who are less advantaged in that area, thanks to the discovery of North Sea oil.
I would advise my noble friend the Minister to be very cautious in this area. Quite honestly, I feel that the way to deal with the poor—I think the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, was, "punishing the poor"—in such areas as the Highlands and Islands, the Borders and indeed other places in Scotland, is by rebate and not by special concessions.
Lord Glenarthur: I have of course considered carefully, as indeed have all of us who have been involved in the discussions on this Bill, the arguments put forward in support of some form of specific relief for crofters and other smallholders from the personal community charge liability. I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Gray and others when, as my noble friend Lord Sanderson has just now, they refer to the special place which, historically, crofters have enjoyed and to the way they contribute to the value of the Highlands and Islands.
I must say that I am not convinced that any general relief of the type proposed by the new clause is appropriate. I must remind your Lordships that we are reducing the personal community charge in order to spread the burden of payment for local authority services more widely and to achieve the accountability which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is so keen to come back to so often. We also want to achieve the fairness which the present domestic rating system so conspicuously lacks. In principle therefore it is quite right that all adults over the age of 18 should be liable for the full personal community charge. The position of crofters and others in their households under the new arrangements will naturally depend on the individual circumstances of each of the households involved.
The amendment implies, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, that one particular group of people should enjoy a sizeable reduction in their personal community charge liability simply because they form a distinct economic and social category. I very much understand the point of view of my noble friend Lord Sanderson when he refers to others who may live in comparatively less favoured parts of the Scottish Lowlands, or wherever, but who are not crofters and who may have their own difficulties to contend with.
If we went down that road I am sure we would receive representations from them and from many other groups of people that they should be granted similar relief. That would make a serious breach in the principle that the community charge should be a universal obligation. That in its turn would lead to

1181
unfairness to others who, though no less deserving than those in favoured groups, were not able to argue that their social or economic status justified relief from personal community charge liability.
I must therefore say that if some crofters and their families have difficulty in meeting the full personal community charge payment, the remedy really must lie, as my noble friend Lord Sanderson said, where it lies with all the others; and that is in the rebate system which we propose. This will allow full account to be taken, on an individual basis, of the financial circumstances of people in that position without invidious distinctions being made between particular groups of people. I am convinced that that is a fairer and a more equitable approach than what is proposed in the noble Lord's amendment. I hope he will accept that and will be able to withdraw his amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: What the noble Lord is saying is that a fairer approach would be the invidious one of assessing personal income and allowing people a rebate, which entails the dreaded means test. A means test can be useful, but that was not the case I was putting. I must say to the noble Baroness from the lands of Angus that the crofts of the Shetlands, the crofts of the Western Isles and the crofts of Argyll—a county of some importance to the Conservative Party—are very different from the size of the farms in the glens of Angus and, certainly, from those in the Borders of Scotland, where the holdings in the hills are infinitely bigger than the crofts in the Highlands crofting counties. They are a special category and have been so considered for many years.
I am not being sentimental about the Highlands. I have done business in the Highlands, I have started businesses in the Highlands and I have owned land in the Highlands. I do not think that one needs to be sentimental about them to want to see the population stay there. There are many other disadvantages. They are a special community. They may well have profitable jobs. I would not mind the noble Lord, Lord Gray, having a concession of 50 per cent. on his rates. He is, after all, well worth preserving in his native habitat and well worth preserving in his habitat here.
The case I was making was that, if you take £170 a year off the average household, you will shake the progress being made in the Highlands. If you have a good job and a good deal of money coming into a house in the Highlands and you also have a croft, you still have to pay far more to get your children home or to go to see them if they are away, as well as more for your food and everything else. Successive governments have thought that a special concession was necessary. I think that the case has really been proven over the years and that the success that we have had in the Highlands will be put at risk if we start saying, "We are going to have this even principle all over, and hit the communities with a reduction in income".
I am very displeased with the noble Lord's attitude. I shall not push the amendment at this stage, but I shall certainly be back with an amendment at Report stage.
1182
I beg leave, with great regret, to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Rebates from rates and community charges]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 257:
Page 19, line 32, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: It is no one's fault, because this was all rather rushed, but I think it better if the grouping includes Amendment No. 257 with Nos. 257A, 258, 259 and 261. Noble Lords on the other side—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I asked the noble Lord, Lord Ross, whether he would take in Amendment No. 260 in the name of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, in order to save time. It raises the same point.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I was about to say that there are one or two other amendments that Members will find very close to this group. It may save time if they are discussed together and moved when we reach them.
The purpose of these amendments is to give the Secretary of State power to give full 100 per cent. rebates. In the City of Glasgow alone, there are 56,000 council houses which are at present fully rebated out of a total of 165,000.
The way in which the Bill is introduced without these provisions may make it very punitive indeed in relation to Scotland. Everyone over 18 years of age will be required to pay the community charge, with a few limited exceptions. The new income support scales are vital in the assessment of rebates. Those will include the personal allowances plus the appropriate premiums for illness, injury, special diet and similar things, and will form the basis of the new housing benefit assessments.
It is noticeable that despite the fact that all adults over the age of 18 will be liable for the same amount of community charge in an area, the level of housing benefit which they receive will be markedly different. That is so because the Department of Health and Social Security proposes to limit the income support personal allowance to £24 per week for those aged between 18 and 24. Those aged 25 and over will receive an allowance of £30.60. That is a difference of £6.60. It is a big difference when we are speaking of those who arc at the bottom of the scale. Such figures are critical in the assessment of housing benefit entitlement. Any person with an income at or below the level of the personal allowance will receive maximum housing benefit, which is a 100 per cent. rent rebate and an 80 per cent. rebate. For every £1 of net income above that figure, the maximum rent and rebate will be reduced by 60p and 20p respectively.
The Government have never given an adequate justification of why they feel it is necessary to give a reduced level of income support personal allowance to a person who happens to be under the age of 25. Day to day living is no cheaper for such people. Food, clothing, heating and other expenses are fairly

1183
standard, regardless of age. If the Government stand by the particularly weak and totally unjustified logic that a person under the age of 25 needs less or cheaper food, less heat or less and cheaper clothing then that logic should also be carried forward to the level of community charge which they are liable to pay. A lower charge should be levied against them since they are under the age of 25. That seems perfectly logical to me.
If the Government are not prepared to revise the social security regulations to provide the same level of income support for all adults up to pension age, the result will be that young adults will be paying the same level of unrebated community charge as persons aged 25 and over from a lower income. They will have an income which is £6.60 lower than that which they will have when they are over the age of 25.
If we assume that the community charge is £300 a year, 20 per cent. of that would be required to be paid, which would result in the figure of £1.15 per week. That is 4.8 per cent. of the weekly income of a person who is between the ages of 18 and 25. It is only 3.75 per cent. of the income of someone over the age of 25. I believe that the social security amendments should be revised to give the same level of income support personal allowance to all adults aged 18 or over; or that the level of community charge to be levied on persons aged between 18 and 24 should be set at a lower level than that charged to anyone over the age of 25.
That completes my introduction to this whole group of amendments. I am aware that other noble Lords may wish to comment on particular aspects of the way in which rebates are likely to work—or not work—unless the Government are more flexible. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: None of these grouped amendments goes wide enough. None of them as such is suitable for inclusion in the Bill as it stands. But a crucial and important point of principle is involved and the thread that binds the amendments for grouping is our common concern to ease the shoe where it pinches.
I support the spirit of Amendment No. 257, the mandatory "shall". I support the spirit of Amendments Nos. 257A, 258 and 259—graduated rebates up to 100 per cent., not the minimum charge of 20 per cent. But I support them subject to the extension of the categories of exemption under Clause 8(7) to include three new categories. The first is the mentally handicapped. For these the principle of accountability is not apposite. It makes no sense. The second is persons in receipt of income support under the Social Security Act. Again, what is the object of a mere money merry-go-round? The third category is persons in receipt of state benefit or allowances who either have no other source of income or whose level of income or capital resources is such as to give them entitlement to the 100 per cent. rebate. At this stage I do not want to go into whether it should be £100, £150 or £200. That is for a subsequent stage. I am concerned only with points of principle.
This level of income or capital resources which gives rise to the 100 per cent. rebate must be built in to
1184
Clause 24 as a governing principle of the Bill, the crucial point made by my noble friend on the previous amendment. Another governing principle of the regulations to be made under Clause 24 is that the categories of persons to whom the 100 per cent. rebate applies, if not exempted under Clause 8(7), must be set out in Clause 24. If exempted under Clause 8(7) the remaining categories of persons to whom graduated rebate applies again must be set out in the Bill as a governing principle of the regulations.
In context with graduated rebates there is no means of implementation proposed in the Bill; nor indeed is any means of implementation proposed by any amendment on the Marshalled List. There is no way in which any conduct of the inquiry as to the determination of the percentage rebate according to ability to pay can be assessed above the qualifying level, whatever that may be, for the 100 per cent. rebate. In this regard, again as a governing principle of the regulations Clause 24 requires amendment.
Furthermore, and lastly, Clause 24 must state on the face of it any special arbitrary fixed rate rebate—say, 50 per cent. applicable to students, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, or to a manse. That should be clearly stated as a special arbitrary fixed rate.
The question is whether Her Majesty's Government will extend the categories of exemption under Clause 8(1) in the three ways that have been suggested or whether the equivalent effect will be achieved indirectly by the merry-go-round of 100 per cent. rebates. As I understand it, the Bill as drafted makes no provision for graduated rebates according to ability to pay; but on Amendment No. 104 I believe my noble friend the Minister expressly recognised that there is a problem. This is where it arises, under Clause 24.
It is a problem that must be dealt with. I say that without derogation from my support of the principle of the Bill. However, if one supports the principle of a Bill it must work fairly for those unable to pay. Irrespective of whether the Government pursue exemption or 100 per cent. rebates for certain categories, it is wholly apparent that Clause 24 requires wholesale redrafting to take into account primary legislation, all the relevant governing principles to which I have referred and any question of those fixed percentage rebates for the manse or for students. Such matters may not be left to the administrative discretion of the Secretary of State under secondary legislation, even with the affirmative resolution procedure as regards regulations under Clause 24 as proposed in Amendment No. 269.
With the leave of the Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, is unable to be here, let me say that in general he appreciates that I have taken account of all the categories in his Amendment No. 130 in everything that I have said and he supports what I say. However, the noble Lord says that he cannot support the graduated rebates which propose a means test. That is not because he disagrees with them but because it is impossible politically for any party to accept a means test. It is therefore fruitless to propose one.
I have not had the opportunity to talk to my noble friend, if I may call him that, but I received his note.

1185
I wholly disagree with him. I think it is not only politically possible but politically requisite, because how else can you graduate without a means test on ability to pay? If you cannot do that the Bill would work an inhuman unjustice. On that, therefore I wholly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and I wholly support the spirit of the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Ross and Lord Kirkhill.
4 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: As my name stands to Amendment No. 259 it is self-evident that I support the tenor of the remarks made from both sides of the Committee. It was my intention to speak, if not at length at least in some detail, in support of my amendment and, indeed, those amendments associated with it. However, I recognise that it is now after four o'clock and I am aware that a number of those of us who have Scottish bases wish to catch shuttles to them within the next two hours or so. To that extent the Minister should be thankful for small mercies because I do not intend to speak other than briefly.
I want to make just one or two remarks. It seems queer to me that if those who are on the lowest incomes are to pay their proportion—and it is currently being suggested as possibly 20 per cent.—it will have to come from an amount of benefit which is already overcommitted. At present people often have to make a choice between essentials such as food and fuel. In my view these proposals represent yet another charge on people's benefits. Enforcing the principle of universality will mean that many more poor people will find themselves caught up in the battle between local authorities and central government over spending levels.
Whatever view one takes on that issue, it does not seem to me to be acceptable that poor people should be made poorer as a result of this part of the Bill. I am told by the Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux that its experience of dealing with inquiries from those on or near supplementary benefit—that is, the income support level—leads it to conclude that many such people will simply not be able to pay any proportion of the community charge. Indeed, I am told that the Bath Street Citizens Advice Bureau in Glasgow, for example, in January and February this year dealt with inquiries relating to over £600,000 worth of debt. It follows that in that type of area in Scotland many people will default.
Clearly local authorities will be faced with insurmountable problems in enforcing diligence against people with a very low income and few personal possessions of any worth. It seems to me that the administrative costs to the local authorities of pursuing such small sums of money are likely to be disproportionate and certainly will be very high.
The provisions of the Bill which relate to the recovery of arrears will exacerbate the problem as the arrears due will be increased by substantial sums in relation to the original debt. That is clear from Schedule 2, paragraph 7(2); for example, the sheriff officer's fees and the surcharge of 10 per cent. which can be levied.
1186
I do not wish to go on. I could continue but it would only dot the i's and cross the t's of my argument. I support the tenor of the remarks that have been made thus far this afternoon on this particular major aspect of the Bill and I ask the Government at this stage to reconsider its provisions.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I think it may now be appropriate if I say a few words about Amendment No. 260, which is a probing amendment. As must be quite obvious to the Government, there is great concern on all sides of the Committee about certain categories of people, be they couples or single persons, who at present are receiving a 100 per cent. rates rebate and who, when the Social Security Act 1986 comes into force next April, will be receiving an 80 per cent. rebate.
On 23rd June last year during the Committee stage of the Social Security Bill the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, moved an amendment which increased to 100 per cent. the rates rebate for people receiving income support and housing benefit. Many Members of the Committee feared that the Government's insistence that such people should have to pay 20 per cent. of their rates would lead to hardship.
Replying on behalf of the Government, the Minister, Lord Trefgarne, said:
"A number of speakers … were concerned that this might lead to some particular hardships—people going without homes or without food. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, pointed out, the rates of income support have not yet been decided and will be settled nearer the time, taking into account all these considerations. "—[Official Report, 23/6/86; cols. 70–1.]
I fully accept that assurance in the situation to which it applied. It applied to people on low incomes faced with paying 20 per cent. of one rates bill. I cannot accept it in the context of people who, under this Bill, will be faced with paying 20 per cent. of two community charges, because the assurance was not given in that context.
A low-income couple—possibly pensioners or a young couple with small children—will have to pay 20 per cent. of two community charges. That may amount to considerably more than 20 per cent. of one rates bill; for example, at present the rates on a two-bedroomed house in Fraserburgh are £260 a year, and 20 per cent. of £260 is £52. The community charge in that district, which is Banff and Buchan, is expected to be somewhere between £155 and £180 per head. That would mean about £340 for a couple, and 20 per cent. of that is £68. For a couple on a low income, £68 is not nothing. In many areas the increase will be far greater because Grampian region and Banff and Buchan are not notably high-spending authorities. In Lothian or Strathclyde, the situation may be far worse.
We will, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, have the opportunity later to debate the regulations setting the levels of income support, family credit, housing benefit and so forth. I understand that that will be by affirmative instrument. I think that this place would be unhappy to be obliged to reject regulations which had already been passed in another place should they not make adequate provision for people on low incomes with community charges to pay in Scotland. That could mean a different level of income support in Scotland from that

1187
in England and Wales until such time as the community charge is introduced in England and Wales. Doing it that way would keep accountability, but it would be complicated.
The Government must find some way of dealing with this problem, be it through income support, exemptions, or higher, even 100 per cent., rebates. Whichever method they use may be permanent, or temporary until similar legislation is passed for England and Wales.
We must have some assurance that the Government will at least reconsider this whole difficult question. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, cannot today say, "Yes, we should do this, that or the next" but I hope that he will agree to look at the whole matter again with his right honourable friend and his colleagues to try to find some way of allaying the grave concerns felt by many noble Lords for some of the poorest people in our society.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My name appears against Amendment No. 261. In that amendment we seek to introduce the principle of 95 per cent. rebates. I do not propose to press that because all these amendments are being taken together. I support the persuasive arguments that have been adduced by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Kirkhill, and by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has his eye on the shuttle later this evening.
The case has been made out persuasively. I welcome the conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, to the ability-to-pay principle. If that principle were introduced into this Bill, the Bill would collapse. It has nothing to do with the ability to pay. With regard to the special circumstances of the rebate, there is great wisdom and strength in his argument.
What a pity that we are discussing this matter at 4.15 p.m. on the day that this place rises. It is an important principle. I hope that the Minister will show us the courtesy and give us the opportunity to look at this important matter in greater depth because it is of great concern to all parts of this place. Perhaps he will be generous and say that he will look again at the application of this principle.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that this has been an important debate upon an important aspect of the Bill. But through the various sets of amendments which we have very sensibly been discussing together there has run the conflicting theme as to whether all this—as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway would like—shall be spelt out in detail in the Bill or whether these are considerations which the Minister should be asked to take into account in the making of regulations. That seems to be the conflict that arises between the two points of view expressed in the Chamber this afternoon.
It is very natural that my noble friend, as a distinguished lawyer, has a preference for spelling it out in the precise language of a statute. Indeed, on many issues I would wholly agree with him. My own bias, modestly, on most legislation is that way. But I
1188
must confess to being influenced also by some experience of social security administration. I am only too well aware of the difficulty which excessive rigidity in primary legislation can cause for those responsible for social security administration. That is surely very relevant to the rebates under this Bill.
I do not believe that until the new system is in operation it will be wholly and completely apparent where the shoe is pinching the worst. There have been various gloomy forecasts made in the course of this debate. Many of them may have quite a lot of force in them but until the system is working it will not be apparent exactly where are the causes of real hardship and difficulty which urgently require remedy. From that point of view I am bound to say that in contrast to my noble friend who sits behind me I very much prefer to leave this to regulations which can be made and easily altered and amended by a Minister who will be held responsible to Parliament.
In my own experience with social security administration I have known times when it has been impossible to do what was clearly needed to be done and was right to do. However, one could not do it because some legislative provision inhibited one from so doing. I shall quote one example. As Minister of Pensions and National Insurance I had to deal with the case of an ex-airman who was very properly drawing the then unemployability supplement on the grounds that he was quite incapable of working having lost both his arms.
However, I discovered that he was earning quite a respectable living—enormously to his credit—by painting pictures with a paint brush held in his teeth or his toes. I was bound under the law to withdraw the allowance. I am glad to tell Members of the Committee that I refused to do so and risked, if necessary, being hauled before the Committee of Public Accounts. I was not prepared to withdraw the allowance in such meritorious case. This is the kind of situation that one has if one ties matters up too tightly in legislation.
On the whole, I like the form in which the Bill now stands. After all, if the Bill stands in its present form, the Minister will not only have the flexibility to deal with difficult cases, but he will remain completely answerable to this Chamber and to another place for any of the difficulties that go wrong. He will not be able to say, "I cannot do this because of the legislation". He will have the power to do it by regulations and will therefore have no alibi if there is some hardship caused with which he does not deal.
Subject to what my noble friend may say, and to what may be said in the rest of the debate, I am inclined to side with the present general structure of the Bill. I shall be intensely interested to hear how my noble friend would propose to deal with some of the very difficult cases which have been so clearly set out by Members of the Committee this afternoon as the Bill stands.
Lord Kilmarnock: As a social security spokesman I cannot allow this debate to pass without briefly drawing attention to the importance of the interaction between this Bill and the Social Security Act 1986, which is mentioned in Clause 24 of the Bill. When the Social Security Act was a Bill before your Lordships'

1189
House, in his response to criticisms at the proposal that everyone should pay 20 per cent. of their rates, regardless of their circumstances, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, argued at col. 70 of Hansard for 23rd June 1986:
"Equally, as we keep stressing, we will not be taking decisions about the level of income support rates until much nearer the date of implementation of the reforms. It is therefore rather premature to he talking in terms of hardship for pensioners or others".
Perhaps it is no longer premature. At the same column, the noble Lord stated:
"But I am not trying to duck this issue, which will also arise when rates are phased out to be replaced by the community charge".
This is the situation we are facing today. The noble Lord continued:
"We shall be happy to discuss with local authority representatives any ideas they may have for keeping this problem under control. It is one of those areas where we may have to do some more detailed thinking, particularly as our ideas begin to firm up on the wider question on the reform of rates themselves".
I would submit to the Committee that we have now reached that stage, particularly as the case for proper compensation through the income support scheme was put by the Social Security Advisory Committee in its response to the original Green Paper on the social security reforms when it said:
"Present supplementary benefit scale rates do not envisage a responsibility for these costs, and if the Green Paper proposal is proceeded with, there will be a real cut of substantial proportions in the value of the safety net … Protection for claimants reliant on the safety net and for all others at equivalent levels of income, seems to us essential if the proposal goes ahead".
In its more recent report, published on 1st April this year, the advisory committee went on to say that payment of the 20 per cent. if demanded,
"will result in a real cut in the value of the safety net for the poorest people in society, with increased hardship or increased debt or both".
Similarly, the House of Commons Social Services Select Committee argued that,
"unless income support levels include a realistic element to cover this contribution to rates, the net effect of this proposal will be to make more people on low incomes worse off".
Surely that situation is not consistent with the Government's stated aim of targeting help on those in greatest need. Without adequate compensation this will mean an across-the-board cut targeted on those who are in greatest need.
The decisions on the benefit levels for next year will be under consideration very soon. As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said, they have not yet been decided. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, spoke of these individual rebates as being the fairest method of settling this sort of problem. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, told the Committee that the regulations under the Social Security Act are the proper place for these matters to be dealt with. However, I remind the Committee that we in your Lordships' House cannot change those regulations—we can comment upon them but we cannot change them—when they come before us. We may have an interesting debate on whether we consider adequate protection is afforded to the people we are talking about, but in all conscience that is all we are likely to do.
1190
As I think it is essential at this stage for the Government to give some indication of their thinking on the question of the rebating of the 20 per cent., which on present plans is to be charged to everybody, I should like the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, to say what groups or individuals are likely to be rebated and what the mechanisms will be. If we do not know that at this stage, then the Bill will go from this House and we shall have no idea whatever how these people will ultimately be affected. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the noble Lord's reply on these matters.
Baroness Faithfull: I rise briefly to support the amendments but I shall not go into them in detail at this late hour because the points have been very well made. However, I shall just make two points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, read out a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, in which he said that it was not politically possible for a means-tested system to be used. While I do not like means-tested systems, nevertheless in the social fund of the Social Security Act such a system is used. Therefore, it is politically possible.
Secondly, I point out to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that while it is possible for those at a higher level to be liberal in interpreting regulations to meet the case, for those at a lower level—that is, at the working level of people behind the counter—it is not possible to change the regulations; they must subscribe to them as they are. Therefore, without further elaboration I merely say that I support the amendments.
The Earl of Selkirk: The noble Lord said that this was a very stern Bill. Perhaps he is right, but the only justification for that is that it contains proper and adequate principles in respect of rebate. Otherwise I say with great respect that none of us could support the Bill. Is my noble friend satisfied that he has adequate principles and powers to do that? To my mind that is essential for any kind of ultimate welcome which I hope this Bill may receive in the course of time. I should like to have that assurance.
Lord Ross of Marnock: We have certainly discovered today the complexity of the Bill, the difficulties of the register and the difficulties of collection. In the past, rates were easy to collect and there was no trouble about that. Now we are looking at something through a glass darkly in respect of the poorest section of the population—people who have more claim on our help in this respect than any other section of the community. Right away we come up against the simple fact—it is not an argument but a fact, and I said so on Second Reading—that there is not a single Member of the Committee who will be worse off as a result of the Bill. Every noble Lord will be better off. When we were discussing rebates I wish that we had all made clear our personal interest in the Bill.
At an earlier stage I declared my interest. I shall save £600 and the highest in the land will save £2,500. However, we are not dealing with the people who will lose money. There is no argument about that because if they are so poor that at present they pay no rates or rent, after 1988 they will have to pay—in respect of their relief under the new Social Security Act—at least 20 per cent. If they are Scots and rates are abolished in

1191
1989, they will have to pay an additional 20 per cent. of what now counts as rates but which will then become a charge.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will realise how angry I was about this, and that people in Scotland such as nurses who start their training at the age of 18 and have to pay for their accommodation and who are not excepted by the Bill will have to pay a charge that is not paid in England. Even the unemployed in Scotland will pay an additional 20 per cent. which is not paid in England. This is very unfair, especially as compared with the gap between Scotland and England. I am sure that this Bill will not come into force in England. There is no guarantee whatever, but it will be quite a long time.
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer: that is what this is about. All we need do is accept an amendment which says that in his modifications in respect of the Social Security Act in relation to housing benefit the Minister will make a change allowing the 100 per cent. rebate. It is not an awful lot but it is worth while. I take the point that was made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy.
It may well be that someone who is living alone and is just above the level may be a little better off, but if two people are living in a house the disadvantage must be doubled. It may be in the Highlands or the Lowlands. It does not matter who they are or where they are, whether they are the noble Lord, Lord Burton, or anybody else; they will all pay the same. The noble Lord and his wife will pay maybe £500 in rates. I will pay £500. At the moment I am paying over £1,100 in rates. However, the cotter, the crofter, the fisherman, no matter in what kind of house they live, will pay exactly the same. There is no fairness in that. The only fairness would be in relation to ability to pay and that is completly ignored in this Bill. I hope that the Committee will take this point and at least bring some fairness into the Bill as far as concerns the poorest people and allow 100 per cent. rebate.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: We have had a long debate on this issue. If I am to embark upon a reply to encompass the detail of the scheme and the amendments that have been suggested, it would be only right for me to begin with an explanation of the general shape of the scheme of rebates as we see it. Doing so will set the debate in context. I shall then turn to the specific points which have been raised in relation to the various amendments.
The starting point will be a system of income thresholds which will take account of personal and family circumstances such as age, number of children and any permanent disability. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, was not present when we debated this matter, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway raised a similar point. When we dealt with an earlier amendment a number of categories were mentioned regarding people who may be mentally handicapped or disabled. They might be considered for either rebate or exemption. I agreed to take this away. We did not go into the mechanics but we discussed the merits of each case. That of course stands.
1192
The income thresholds that I have mentioned will be closely linked to the incomes support levels which include personal allowances designed to give special help to vulnerable groups such as single parents and the disabled. Illustrative figures have been given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for what those thresholds would have been in 1985–86. That is the basis of the figures which have been published by way of press releases. If those have not been drawn to the attention of Members of the Committee, I shall ensure that that is done for clarification.
Having established the income threshold, the operation of a rebate scheme means that someone whose income is equal to or below the threshold for his own circumstances will be entitled to the maximum rebate. As I said at Second Reading, the Government have set illustratively this figure at 80 per cent. for the maximum rebate.
A formal decision on that absolute amount, that percentage, will not be taken until the regulations are made. It is likely that 80 per cent. will be the figure. For those whose income exceeds the threshold for their own personal circumstances there will be a downward taper. The proposed figure in the scheme of housing benefit for rates will be 20 per cent. and that is therefore the figure we envisage including in the community charge rebate scheme. As I said, these arrangements represent a clear framework for the rebate scheme. I think they show that any suggestion that it has not been adequately considered is not the case. I could go into the details of the actual figures that have been given, but I feel at this stage it is probably better to move on to the specific amendments.
I leave aside for the moment the first amendment upon which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, moved this whole block of amendments. I shall try to deal with that when I conclude. The whole question of the scope of the amendments, all of which in a slightly different way require the rebate scheme to provide for rebates of up to 100 per cent. of the community charge levels, is an issue which has been exhaustively debated, not only in relation to this Bill but also in relation to the Social Security Act 1986. The proposition that all those liable for the personal community charge be required to make some contribution towards it is already embodied in the housing benefit scheme for rates which will be introduced on 1st April 1988 under the provisions of the 1986 Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, quoted my noble friend Lord Trefgarne when my noble friend said that it would be premature to discuss this matter until the benefit rates were set. Like it or not, it is still premature, because the benefit rates to apply on 1st April 1988 (when the reformed system of social security benefit is introduced) will not be determined and announced for some time.
In view of the amount of discussion which we have already had on this point in the past, I think I should limit myself to a brief summary of the justification for that policy. There are two reasons for it. The first is that the primary purpose of rates, and in due course the community charge system, is to finance the provision of local authority services. Since all ratepayers and subsequently all community charge

1193
payers have access to local authority services, it seems right that all should make at least some contribution to the costs. The second justification is to increase the accountability of local authorities to their ratepayers or community charge payers for the costs of the services they provide.
As was clearly established during the passage of the Social Security Act 1986 there needs to be a relationship between the services that local authorities provide and the willingness of local taxpayers to meet the costs of those services. If a significant proportion of local taxpayers bear none of the burden of meeting the costs of local services, this relationship surely is broken. The provision for a minimum contribution therefore really must be an essential part of the improvements in accountability which the new system will bring. It will indeed already have been included in principle in the rating system before the community charge is introduced, but the carry-over of the principle into the community charge arrangements will reinforce the improvements in accountability that the broadening of the tax base will bring. The amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Kirkhill—Amendments Nos. 257A, 258 and 259—would strike at the very heart of one of the main principles of the policy.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway raised a number of points, and he quoted the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, in relation to the point raised just now by my noble friend Lady Faithfull: that is to say, the means-tested approach. I do not think that the idea which I understood my noble friend to suggest of a flat rate 100 per cent. rebate only for those on income support, with nothing for anyone else, would be acceptable. It would fail to provide support for a wide range of those who would need it, even if their incomes are some way above the income support level.
Nor can I accept that such a scheme would be unworkable, any more than any other means-tested scheme such as rent and rates rebate schemes are workable at present. I should certainly take issue with my noble friend's suggestion, if I have understood it aright, that the scheme should be operated by direct payments from the DHSS to the local authorities. It seems to me that if we were to do that we would again undermine the concept of accountability which is at the very heart of this Bill.
Another point that he raised concerned the governing principles for the rebate scheme being set out in the Act. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter suggested that to do that might produce more complexities, and he gave us a first-class example from his own long experience of what might happen. My noble friend suggested that Clause 24 should give more details of the governing principles on which the rebate scheme should be based. As I explained. I think on Second Reading—and indeed I went into it just now—the shape of the community charge rebate scheme is very clear. It will be based on the scheme of housing benefit rates to be introduced. The approaching of such a scheme by regulations, without any elaborate statement of governing principles, is already well precedented. Indeed, it was precedented in the Social Security Act to which I have referred.
I listened with interest to the arguments put forward by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, in support of her
1194
amendment. I should say first of all, to put it in a fairly straightforward and simple way, that it would be entirely impracticable to preserve the position of any group of people in relation to rates payments when the community charge system is brought in. The new system will be set up on a completely different basis and therefore we simply could not put into effect the provision which is suggested in the amendment. It would also be wrong in principle to provide that a particular group of people should not be fully subject to the provisions of the community charge system simply because of their position under the rating system.
I also say to the noble Lady that I do not believe it would be justified either. The financial effects of the introduction of the community charge system will of course depend very much on the interaction of a number of factors. If a couple are in receipt of income support with a maximum rates rebate, at the end of the financial year 1988–89, they will be paying a minimum contribution towards their rating bill. How that relates to the minimum contribution they are required to pay towards their community charge bill will depend largely on the size of their rates bill and the kind of property they occupy.
Perhaps I ought to point out to the Committee that the results of the reforms of the social security system—not just housing benefits—which will he brought into force on 1st April 1988, one year before the community charge is introduced, will mean that social security assistance will be better targeted. A large majority of the most needy groups in society will gain, or be no worse off. Among those are unemployed couples and other couples on income support who have no children. Ninety per cent. of people in this group will experience no reduction in income as a result of these reforms, taking account of changes in housing benefit, including the proposed minimum contribution. Since the community charge rebate scheme will be based upon the reformed scheme of housing benefit for rates, I do not think it is right to suggest that the introduction of the community charge calls for the sort of further refinement of the benefit system that the noble Lady proposes in her amendment.
I have endeavoured to cover a lot of ground in winding up this debate. I realise that there is concern about those people, as we discussed the other day, who fall into a particularly "particular" category. I do not think that it would be possible to encompass all those who are suggested in these amendments without blowing a hole right through the Bill. If we do that we shall be doing a very grave disservice, because the burden will tend to fall on others as well who would be required to pay the community charge.
What I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, who moved his first amendment, and indeed to all those others who have spoken in this debate, is that I shall read with very great care the points that have been made. I cannot undertake to do anything more without that reading. I acknowledge the force with which the various amendments have been addressed. But as I have said, the whole principle is very closely wrapped up in the question of the benefit regulations to which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred.

1195
Perhaps I may say in relation to Amendment No. 257, as a small crumb of comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, as we approach the end of this debate, that I think the question of "may" and "shall" is more a matter of drafting than anything else and I certainly would not die in a ditch over replacing "may" with "shall". But all those who have taken part in this debate, including myself, can read what has been said and it will be possible for the noble Lord when we come to Amendment No. 257A, which I imagine will be moved in due course, to withdraw it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister having said what he has about Amendment No. 257, I shall be quite happy to withdraw it, but I shall certainly wish to move Amendment No. 257A formally.
Lord Glenarthur: If the noble Lord wishes to withdraw Amendment No. 257, then I am content for him to do so because I think the drafting is perfectly clear. But I was offering him something of an olive branch, though a fairly small one, on this point—
Lord Ross of Marnock: Why could the noble Lord not accept the amendment?
Lord Glenarthur: I thought I was doing precisely that. It is very difficult for me to respond when the noble Lord is making interventions from that Box. But I am happy to accept Amendment No. 257 and, no doubt, the noble Lord will then move Amendment No. 257A.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 257A:
Page 19, line 35, after ("of) insert ("100 per cent.").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment and I beg to move it formally.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 257A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 74.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Basnett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Birk, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blease, L.

Molloy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Parry, L.

Carter, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Fitt, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Gregson, L.

Seear, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Simon, V.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hughes, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

White, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Lockwood, B.

1196

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Auckland, L.

Hesketh, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beloff, L.

Hooper, B.

Blake, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blyth, L.

Killearn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kimball, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kitchener, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Layton, L.

Burton, L.

Long, V.

Butterworth, L.

Margadale, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Penrhyn, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Derwent, L.

Richardson, L.

Dundee, E.

Rodney, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Romney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rugby, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrier, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Fortescue, E.

Shannon, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Stockton, E.

Gisborough, L.

Strathspey, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Gray, L.

Trafford, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Trumpington, B.

Greenway, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Gridley, L.

Vickers, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.58 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 257B to 259 not moved.]
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 260:
Page 20, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) Such regulations shall ensure that couples in receipt of maximum rates rebate shall not be put at any financial disadvantage by the passing of this Act.").
The noble Lady said: I shall not press this amendment. I shall study carefully what the noble Lord and everybody else have said.
[Amendments Nos. 260 and 261 not moved.]
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Water and sewerage charges]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 261A:
Page 40, leave out from beginning of line 41 to end of line 4 on page 41 and insert—
("10A. Subject to paragraphs 7 and 8 above, the provisions of Part II of and Schedule 2 to this Act shall have effect, subject to such adaptations, exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed, in relation to the community water charges as they have effect in relation to the corresponding community charges.").
The noble Lord said: At this stage I shall not go into a long explanation of the main proposals in Schedule 5. I come to the first amendment, Amendment No. 261 A, of a group which includes Amendments Nos. 262, 263 and 264.
The provision in paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 that those liable to pay any of the community charges should also be liable to pay the community water charges, provided they are connected to a public supply, was intended to bring with it application of the relevant provisions of Part II: for example, that those enjoying the period of grace under the standard charge would similarly not be liable to pay the standard water charge and that the register should contain information about those who would be exempt from water charges because they were not connected to a public supply.
We now consider that to make this intention clear it is necessary to apply the whole of Part II and Schedule 2 to the community water charges with the provision for elements which are unnecessary—for example, separate notification, the maintenance of a separate register and separate rights of appeal—to be prescribed as not applying. This is achieved by the replacement of paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of Schedule 5 with the new paragraph 10A in my amendment.
I hope that in the light of that brief explanation the Committee will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 262 to 264 not moved.]
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Interpretation]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 265:
Page 20, line 25, at end insert—
(" "housing body" means—

(a) a district council;

(b) the Scottish Special Housing Association;

(c) a development corporation (within the meaning of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968;").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to include a definition of "housing body" in Clause 26. This Committee will remember that we discussed earlier the fact that the term is at present introduced and defined for the purposes of paragraph 5 of Schedule 2, which deals with the collection of personal community charges by housing bodies. At that time it seemed to be the opinion that this is the wrong place to have it. I said then that I had this amendment down. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 266:
Page 20, leave out lines 30 and 31.
The noble Lord said: This amendment was taken with Amendment No. 96 and others. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 267:
Page 20, line 41, leave out ("occupied") and insert ("used")
The noble Lord said: Our moment of triumph. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 267A:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
("Grant for rate relief given to certain recreational clubs.
.—The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 2 of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966—
"2A. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 above, the Secretary of State may, as respects the year 1988–89, make provision for the apportionment of a prescribed part of the needs element to any local authority which, under paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of section 4 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1962, reduces or remits rates leviable for that year in respect of the lands and heritages mentioned in the said paragraph (c) or such class as he may determine of such lands and heritages and such an apportionment shall be by reference to the amount of the reduction or remission granted by the authority as estimated by the Secretary of State or so much of that amount as he may determine to be appropriate to be taken into account for the purposes of this paragraph." ").
The noble Lord said: At Report stage of this Bill in another place my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced his intention to provide help in relation to the problems that sports clubs face in Scotland as a result of high rates.
Local authorities have discretion to grant partial or full rates relief to sports clubs under the provison of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1962. My right honourable friend confirmed the Government's view that it is still right to leave such decisions to local discretion. He proposed to ensure, however, that local authorities are not deterred from due exercise of the discretion by the prospect of losing income, if they grant relief. The Government, therefore, propose that authorities should be reimbursed, within a fixed total of grant, for the income they lose through granting rate relief to sports clubs.
From financial year 1989–90—that is, from the introduction of the revenue support grant arrangements described in Clause 23 and Schedule 4 of this Bill—this reimbursement can be achieved in a straightforward way. Grant distribution under the new system will take into account differences between authorities in expenditure need and in the amounts of non-domestic rate income. It will be a simple matter to measure non-domestic rate income net of relief given to sports clubs and so the amount of grant which an authority gets will be increased correspondingly.
However, this leaves us with the financial year 1988–89 when the present rate support grant arrangements will still be operative. At present, only some authorities who grant relief receive reimbursement. This depends on them being eligible for the resources element of rate support grant.
The amendment that I am now proposing to the Local Government (Scotland) Act will allow the Secretary of State to reimburse all local authorities for the income that they lose through granting rating relief to sports clubs. It will achieve this by enabling the Secretary of State to apportion a prescribed part of the needs element of rate support grant to any local authority which provides rates relief for sports clubs. The apportionment will be by reference to the amount of relief that they have granted.
The point of changing the arrangement from the resources to the needs element of grant is simply that

1199
all authorities receive the needs element. This surprisingly roundabout approach is necessary because of the existing terms of the rate support grant legislation. Although the amendment appears lengthy and complex, I assure the Committee that its purpose is simple and straightforward. It will of course apply to the financial year 1988–89 only.
I should make it clear that the need for this concession arises from the anomalous high rateable values of sports clubs in Scotland. The Government intend to address this issue and in due course achieve harmonisation of rateable values in Scotland and England, and it is only fair to say that the concession arrangements will have to be looked at again in that context.
In the light of my right honourable friend's announcement in another place, which is one that has rightly been welcomed by those concerned, and in view of the detail of the amendment, I commend it to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I must thank the Minister for having tabled this new clause. I want to make only one point and it may be of help to him. I have been informed that Section 4(5) (c) of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1962, to which the new clause refers covers discretionary relief to non-profit-making sports and recreation clubs. Section 4(5) (a) covers educational and social welfare organisations.
As I understand it, village halls and old people's clubs come under Section 4(5) (b). That means that, because the new clause refers only to Section 4(5) (c), old-age pensioners clubs could be left out in the cold without any rate relief, while darts clubs and wealthy golf clubs would be included. I think that would be a new provision.
I do not expect to receive an answer now. I am trying to be helpful in the hope that the Minister will be able to look into the matter to see whether the reference is correct or whether the information I have been given is wrong. However, I welcome the general spirit of the new clause.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This amendment to the Bill is extremely good news. There is a specific problem for sports clubs which village halls and pensioners clubs do not have and it is involved with the way in which they are valued. I am quite sure that the Government's listening ear on the matter is enormously appreciated right across Scotland. It is excellent that it can be done now for the coming year in this Bill. I should like to thank the Minister very much indeed.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to my noble friend. I do not think that I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, now but I shall look into the matter and perhaps I may write to him.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Will the Minister clear up just one point? Is it correct that the new clause is only applicable from 1989?
Lord Glenarthur: I shall have to look into the detail of what I have just said to remind myself. I am not sure
1200
whether looking through my notes at this time of day I shall find it. My mind is reeling too. Perhaps I can let the noble Lord have the answer in writing to that question also.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It says that this is in respect of the year 1988–89, so it is not this year but next year.
The other point I should make is that the Chairman of Committees would look at me glaringly if I were not to say that this measure does not solve all the problems of sports grounds or sports clubs in Scotland. Their hope will be long deferred until we have an equalisation of valuations and so forth. I presume that that will come when we have a similar Bill for England. As I have already said, I do not think that we ever shall.
Lord Glenarthur: I hesitate to comment further on sports clubs in view of the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in certain sports clubs, let alone the interest in them of the noble Lord the Lord Chairman. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. I hope that he will agree that what we are doing here, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour said, is a help. It has been asked for, and that is why we have done it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Does the Minister agree that it is next year? We are already into the 1987–88 year in local government, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Appeals]:
[Amendment No. 267B not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Crown application]:
[Amendment No. 268 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Additional powers exercisable by, and procedure for, regulations]:
[Amendment No. 269 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 270:
Page 22, line 7, at end insert ("; and all the regulations and directions shall be made before 1st January 1988.").
The noble Lord said: This is important, because we want to have these regulations fairly early. I have suggested that they should be made before 1st January 1988. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I am afraid that I cannot accept this amendment. It would require all regulations under the Bill to be made by 1st January 1988. That would be entirely impractical, if only because certain of the regulation-making powers can only be used once we have some experience of the working of the community charge system. For example, the provision in Clause 15(1)(b) that the collective community charge multiplier may be amended only once every three months,
"or such other period as may be prescribed",

1201
could not possibly be used, if it was ever necessary to use it, until some experience of the system had been gained.
However, I recognise that behind the amendment lies a concern that the necessary regulations may not be made in time for the system to be brought into effect on 1st April 1989. I find that concern entirely constructive. I am happy to assure the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that we shall work hard to bring forward the necessary regulations in good time. We expect that it will be possible to make the main sets of regulations for the setting up of the registration system in the summer of this year after further consultation with the assessors and other interested partes.
We aim to make the further sets of regulations which, though equally important, are not so crucial in terms of timing within a few months following that. They are the regulations which will deal with the timing and the manner of appeals to be made under Clause 16. I can assure the noble Lord that we are convinced that it will be possible to set up the community charge system in good time for it to come into effect on 1st April 1989. We shall make every possible effort to achieve that in good time and in consultation with local authorities and other interested parties.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Finance]:
[Amendment No. 270A not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 271:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
("Amendments to Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987.
The Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 shall be amended as follows—
(a) in section 1(5) (which relates to time to pay directions), after the word "rates" in paragraph (e) there shall be added—
"(e) in an action by or on behalf of a—

(i) levying authority for the payment of any community charge or community water charge within the meaning of section 26 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 (which defines terms used in that Act) or any amount payable under section 18(3) (payment of community charges in respect of backdated period, with surcharge and interest) of that Act; or

(ii) regional or islands council for payment of any amount payable as a civil penalty under section 17(10) or (11) (failure to provide information to a registration officer) of that Act,"

(b) in section 5(4) (which relates to time pay orders), after the word "authority" in paragraph (e) there shall be added—
"(ee) in relation to a debt including any sum due to—

(i) a levying authority in respect of any community charge or community water charge within the meaning of section 26 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 (which defines terms used in that Act) or any amount payable under section 18(3) (payment of community charges in respect of backdated period, with surcharge and interest) of that Act; or

1202

(ii) a regional or islands council in respect of any amount payable as a civil penalty under section 17(10) or (11) (failure to provide information to a registration officer) of that Act,"

(c) in section 106 (interpretation)—

(i) after the definition of "employer" there shall be inserted—" "levying authority" has the meaning assigned to it in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and, in relation to community water charges, means the regional or islands council;" and

(ii) in the definition of "summary warrant", after the word "of", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 or"; and

(d) in paragraph 35 of Schedule 5, in the definition of "creditor" there shall be inserted at the end—
"(d) for the purposes of—

(i) paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, the levying authority;

(ii) that paragraph as read with section 17(10) or (11) of that Act, the regional or islands council." ").

The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 248. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
5.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 272 and 273:
Page 48, line 5, leave out ("definition") and insert ("definitions").
Page 48, line 6, at end insert ("and "rate" ").
The noble Lord said: It may be convenient if I move Amendments Nos. 272 and 273 together. They have the effect of removing the definition of rate from the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947. They are consequential upon Amendment No. 30 to Schedule 1 of the Bill and Amendment No. 100 to Clause 6 which the Committee has already accepted. Amendment No. 100 introduced a definition of rates for use in statutes generally. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 273A not moved.]
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 274:
Page 22, line 21, at end insert ("provided that a simple majority of the people in Scotland have approved this Act in a referendum.").
The noble Lord said: Since this is the last amendment on the Marshalled List it enables me to pay a compliment to the Minister for his courtesy, his agility, and his application on this very complicated Bill. At the same time it enables me to pay a compliment to others on this side of the Committee who have pursued the intricacies of the Bill with such diligence.
I now propose to move the amendment in my name on the Marshalled List. We have had the principle of a referendum recently in Scottish history. It was not so long ago that we voted by referendum in Scotland on setting up a Scottish assembly. Members of the Committee will also remember that in the substantial constitutional change involved in our joining the

1203
Common Market the government of the day saw fit to arrange for a referendum.
I can well understand that there may be resistance to this democratic proposal. I spend a certain amount of my time in Switzerland where they are much given to holding referenda on issues of much less importance than this, and it is probably the healthiest democracy in Europe, although I would not push the Swiss example too far.
However, the Government should recognise that in the latest opinion poll in Scotland the Conservative Party polled 18 per cent. of the votes. We are imposing this piece of legislation on the people of Scotland from a Westminster Government. We are entitled to ask the people of Scotland these questions. Do they want this legislation? Do they like it? Would they support it? On the basis of that important democratic principle, which is important to the survival of the unity of the United Kingdom—because there will be great resentment at the imposition of this unfortunate Bill on a reluctant population in Scotland—we are entitled to test its acceptance. I challenge the Government so to do. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: This would definitely bring out the whole genesis of this Bill, with its pandering to panic and to self-interest. I have already said that certain people will benefit from the Bill. The poorest of the poor will not. But I think that blinded by the storms of Perth the Government have given way.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is quite right. Mind you—I do not know whether he should apply his Swiss comparison too far—
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Not too far.
Lord Ross of Marnock:—because the women did not have a vote there, so one has to be very careful about that. However, we shall have an opportunity in Scotland before very long to let Parliament know exactly what we think of the Government, not only in respect of this Bill but also other legislation and policy items that have been passed to the detriment of Scotland. That will be the best and fairest way. Everyone who has a vote will be on their toes to ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, perhaps comes over to this side of the Chamber and people more suitably representative of Scotland go on the other side.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I have no doubt what my noble friend's response to this amendment will be. I am quite sure that of all the measures for which a referendum may be chosen, this is about the least suitable. Five days have been spent in Committee on this Bill. It is a matter of intense complexity. The idea of expecting the whole population of Scotland to take a snap decision on the simple issue of whether or not to have it is to bring the whole legislative process into a state of mockery.
I say to the noble Lord that there arc other issues on which a referendum may be appropriate, and on which the people would find it quite easy to make a decision. If the noble Lord wishes to propose a referendum, perhaps he could propose one on the restoration of capital punishment, in which case I think he might have a surprise.
1204
Having said that, I would join with the noble Lord in the very proper tribute he paid to the Minister, not only for his courtesy, efficiency and knowledge of the Bill but, above all, for the sheer physical stamina that enabled him to deal with the Bill here on Tuesday, be in Edinburgh yesterday, and spend a long day in Committee today without appearing to be any the worse for it; nor indeed has he lost on a single amendment. I congratulate him warmly.
Lord Glenarthur: As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter forcasts, I certainly do not wish to detain the Committee for long in responding to this amendment; nor, I imagine, would the noble Lord expect me to accept it. I know that a similar provision was contained in the Scotland Act 1978 referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. Although there can be two views on this question, in that instance the ultimate result of the inclusion of the provision was entirely desirable. However, at a more serious level in this country it is generally considered that referenda are justifiable only when a very clear issue of constitutional principle is involved. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that a complex issue such as this would not be a suitable matter.
While this Bill would of course make radical, far reaching and desirable changes to the system of local government finance in Scotland, it does not come clearly into the constitutional category where we would normally consider a referendum justifiable. The reforms proposed in this Bill will set the system of local government finance on a sound footing, and, I would go so far as to say, a footing which is well needed. To embark upon a referendum would introduce the further delay and uncertainty which would inevitably flow from a decision to make the coming into force of the Bill subject to the referendum.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and to my noble friend for their kind remarks. We may have spent five days in Committee, but it is five days work that seems to have gone remarkably quickly. I am sure we shall all return refreshed after the Easter Recess.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: At this late hour and with a somewhat thin Committee, I would not propose to put this important principle to the vote. We will consider it at a later stage. I suspected that to consult the people of Scotland was an exercise of accountability. The people of Scotland would certainly be interested to understand what is happening to them. They do not always follow the proceedings of your Lordships' House. If this matter were debated publicly in Scotland, and a vote taken then the Government may be satisfied as to whether the people accept accountability and involvement which is the purpose of the entire exercise. However, at this late stage on this Easter Thursday I do not propose to detain the Committee.
While paying compliment to the stamina of the Minister, perhaps I may say that he has only won the first round. Recent boxing experience suggests that a comeback is possible. We shall return to this matter at the Report stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Merchant Shipping (Light Dues) (Amendment) Regulations 1987
5.25 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill rose to move, That this House takes note of the regulations (S.I. 1987 No. 244), laid before the House on 27th February.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to detain your Lordships on the last day before the Easter Recess, but this is an important debate and I am very grateful to those other noble Lords who have put their names down to speak.
As noble Lords will be aware it had been my intention to move a prayer to annul the regulations, but for some reason that has been found to be impossible as we have run out of time. I must explain that that is not due to any error on my part or on the part of my noble friend the Chief Whip. Eventually, when I was told that we had run out of time, it seemed that there was only one course to take as it would be wrong to rise for the Recess without having a debate on these regulations which deal with the increase in light dues.
The only possibility was to move a Motion to take note of the regulations. I make it quite clear that in moving a Motion to take note I do not accept the principle in the regulations. On the contrary, I found myself in agreement with the comments made only yesterday by the chairman of the British Ports Association at a function at which the Minister was the principal and distinguished guest. The chairman described the increases as illogical, irresponsible and indefensible.
The regulations relate to the superintendence and management of our coastal lighthouses, buoys and beacons. In that connection there are three general lighthouse authorities: Trinity House, the Northern Lighthouse Board and the Commissioners of Irish Lights. The costs of those three authorities are met by the general lighthouse fund for which the Secretary of State has statutory responsibility. There will be many who know more about these matters than I do. So far so good. However, neither the Secretary of State nor the Department of Transport meets the actual costs. The total annual expenditure is some £60 million, £46 million of which is funded by dues levied on merchant ships calling at UK ports. The balance is met from reserves in the general lighthouse fund, which as I have said is held by the Government but which has been built up by light dues paid over a period of years.
The Government have argued that because of the drain on the fund, there must be a 13·85 per cent. increase in light dues and that is the purpose of the regulations. Why do we wish to meet the cost of navigation lights in this way? That is the first important question. All European countries except Sweden, Greece and Ireland meet the cost of lighthouses and other navigational aids out of general taxation, not by a tax on port users. Why should the United Kingdom be the exception? With seven of the EC states treating this as a national charge, it surely is
1206
a matter for harmonisation and a directive from the Community.
It may be an issue that should be taken up with the Council of Transport Ministers. I hope that the Government will seriously consider at a not too distant date transferring these costs to national taxation. Why must the United Kingdom be different from most other European countries? In support of this principle we have the British Ports Association, the General Council of British Shipping and Trinity House. They all support the view that this should be a national charge and not a charge on port use.
In addition we now have the fact that the general lighthouse fund will also meet the costs of the Racal Decca Navigation System, the order for which was debated in your Lordships' House in January, if my memory serves me correctly. Again I am told that only Britain and Denmark do not fund the costs of this system from general taxation. There is also a lights advisory committee which is representative of shipowners, port authorities, chambers of commerce and underwriters.
Incidentally, I should like to ask why the representatives of nearly 2,500 staff in the three authorities to which I referred are not also represented on the lights advisory committee? Those are the men who actually carry out the operations for which the three authorities are responsible. However, the lights advisory committee, which advises the Department of Transport on lighthouse matters, challenges the Government's view of the finances and the increases. That is the body which advises the Government on these matters.
The unanimous view of the lights advisory committee was that the increases were not justified. It was also the view of the committee that the level of dues should be frozen for at least a further year pending the important studies now taking place on navigational aids and possible reorganisation.
I should like to say in passing that only the day before yesterday two members of staff of a lighthouse travelled a long distance to see me and to put their points on the studies which are taking place. They endorsed the view that that was a good reason for light dues standing frozen at present. They also put forward the point that there is excellent monitoring of all the automation programmes now taking place. They expressed the view that there are a number of imperfections in the automation programme which ought to be considered. That is one reason why I hope that the men who are doing the job will be consulted about these matters in addition to the other bodies.
In an oral Answer in another place on 23rd February, Mr. Michael Spicer, the Under-Secretary of State, said that light dues impose no direct costs on the port industry. He is perfectly correct in saying "no direct costs". The Secretary of State, in a Written Answer on 4th February, (at col. 663 of Commons Hansard) concluded:
"I much regret the need for this increase, and I recognise that will be unwelcome to shipowners and the ports' industry".
The General Council of British Shipping has pointed out that the increases could mean that for a light container ship calling at a British port the light dues could work out at about £40 for each container. The British Ports Association estimates that light dues add

1207
no less than £20,000 to the cost of each ship entering United Kingdom ports. As a result of the payment of light dues, a ship calling at a UK port will pay twice the cost of handling a container at Rotterdam and more than three times the cost at Hamburg. This hits the consumer. It hits the shipowner first of all, but eventually it must affect the consumer. Such costs must dissuade shipping companies from coming into UK ports.
In March 1986 the Department of Transport conducted a study into differentials in freight rates between the United Kingdom and north-west Continental ports. This study found that on average a seventh of the difference in freight rates was because of light dues. To make matters worse, Ministers have announced—I think the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, himself has echoed this statement—that there is to be another regulation to extend the liability for light dues to larger fishing vessels which the Secretary of State has said comprise about 40 per cent. of the United Kingdom's fishing fleet. The annual charge which it is proposed to put into this new regulation will be £200, plus £320 for each metre in excess of 10 metres. The intention, I understand, is that this is to apply to vessels of all nationalities, but obviously it will be a further serious imposition of costs on 40 per cent. of our hard-pressed shipping fleet. Yet no mention is made of any charges likely to be imposed on similar size pleasure craft.
If the purpose of the regulations is to recover costs why is there no suggestion of any contribution from the Royal Navy, which has great use of the navigational aids? On that point, previously the Royal Navy paid some £800,000 per annum, so I understand, to Decca for the navigation system. It will no longer pay that as it has been transferred to the general national fund.
The main objective for having this debate is to complain and protest against the level of increases in light dues, which I hope the Government will seriously reconsider. Better still, I hope the Government will give very serious consideration to following practically all the other European countries by transferring the costs of light dues altogether to national taxation. That would greatly help the competitive position of our British ports.
However, if the Government are determined to remain blinkered on this issue of transferring light dues to the national charge, I hope they will consider the other suggestions which have been made, particularly the principle that all users should make a contribution to the light dues, if the Government insist that light dues shall still be paid by shipowners. This is an issue of great importance to British shippers, British ports and British-owned ships which frequently use United Kingdom ports. On that basis, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That this House takes note of the regulations (S.I. 1987 No. 244), laid before the House on 27th February.—(Lord Underhill).
5.38 p.m.
Lord Layton: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, very much indeed for
1208
raising this issue. It is only right that I should declare my interest in the whole subject in that I am president of the British Shippers Council. We the shippers have been concerned with the port charges and light dues to a very great extent over a very long time, with little help from the Government to solve the problem. In this respect I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on the idea that we should ask the Government to look closely at alternative methods of providing a system of payment and that it should be withdrawn from being an effective barrier to trade, which is what it is at the moment.
In the study done by the Department of Transport in 1986, we found out that our combined port charges amounted to 60 per cent. more than the port charges in our competitor ports overseas. This additional cost burden falls on both British and foreign vessels and may in turn be passed on by them to shippers (as I know to my cost) in the form of increased costs on both exports and imports.
In turn, shipowners, both UK and foreign, are likely to take this charge into account when considering the revising of sailing schedules and ports of call. That has the inevitable result that more vessels will call at Continental ports in preference to those of the United Kingdom. Apart from the obvious damage this does by causing a lack of business in the port industry, the consequent diminution in competition has another very important effect. It means that as fewer ships come into British ports there is less competition among them, and up go the freight rates.
The result is that the freight rates from British ports to overseas long distance are higher than the freight rates from the Continental ports. For this reason, friends of mine busily put their materials into a container and ship them across the Channel on a ferry or send them over on a coastal vessel in order to ship them out of ports like Antwerp with a lower long-distance freight rate.
That is one of the impacts, and it is a double-barrelled one; but there is another which is very important. It increases costs generally to manufacturing industries which are importers of material. If I take my old company—here I come back not only to the general port costs but to the light dues—the British Steel Corporation, which we have been very much hoping to get back on to a profitable basis and into a state where it can be denationalised, finds that it is paying out £3 million in light dues. That is a very serious tax.
To give your Lordships a precise picture of how important this is, I would explain that we have built some very large ships. We have built the port at Port Talbot and we have enlarged the shipping into the Teesside works so that we can take big ships. That is to enable the corporation to bring high quality products from far distant countries overseas such as Canada, Brazil and even Australia.
However, if your Lordships look at the picture now you will find that a 100,000-tonner coming into Port Talbot or Teesside has a transatlantic freight rate of something just over £2 per tonne and it pays 18p per tonne in light dues. It pays a further 28p per tonne in port dues. The result is that the cost of port dues on that exercise represents a 25 per cent. increase on the

1209
existing freight charge. We managed to get the freight charge down but we are now faced with an increase in the overall costs, which are backing away from the exercise of getting the costs of steel down. And—let us face it—the costs of steel are vital for a large range of industries such as the motor trade, the manufacturers of refrigerators and so on.
It is only by going at every part of the exercise in manufacturing, right from the digging of the raw material out of the ground through to the finished product, that we can be sure of sense. Therefore I very much support the idea that light dues should be a national charge and that if possible we should share them with the other countries that are concerned.
I might also add that there is absolutely no use for lighthouses and other matters of that sort in relation to the ships I am talking about for the British Steel Corporation, because with their radar, their other gear and their knowledge of the ports they are concerned with, they do not need such navigational aids. So they are being charged highly for something which is of little interest to them.
We should seriously ask the Government to look carefully at how to revise this practice. Its origin goes hack to the 1890s when this country was the basis of an extensive industrial system, with a fine world trade picture and with few other countries seriously competing. It made probable sense at that stage, but today, with so many other highly competent industrial countries and with the degree of extension of merchant shipping and the need we have for our ports to be efficient and for our charges to be low, in order to take away the brakes that we put on the movement of export and import goods it is vitally important that we find a new way of carrying these loads.
Therefore we have to look on this as one of those hidden so-called barriers to trade which, in joining the Community, we had hoped to abolish. Here is one in our own court that we should be able to tackle and that we certainly ought to tackle. In my view as a shipper of goods abroad and as an importer of raw materials, the sooner the Government can get down to sorting out this problem and putting us on to a highly profitable basis in this area, the better.
5.46 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am very pleased indeed to follow the noble Lord, Lord Layton, because he has brought home with his great experience the effect of this increase in light dues on the trade of this country, which to my mind is what really matters. I have spent most of my working life with the shipping industry and I am sure that shipowners feel very bitterly about it, because the costs come straight at them. But it is really the effect on trade that is more important than the effect on the shipping industry.
In the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Kennet, who is still on the sick list, I should like to say a few words from these Benches in support of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who made an excellent speech. He laid out the position so clearly and so widely that he left very little for people such as me to follow with. He made the point—I want to repeat just this one point and I shall try not to repeat them all—that this increase has been introduced in direct disagreement
1210
with the Lights Advisory Committee, who said that no such thing should be done.
It seems to me an extraordinary case. I understand that the lighthouse fund has quite a large surplus and that it would be perfectly possible for any operating deficit to be met, at any rate for another year, by drawing on the reserves of the lighthouse fund, which I would remind your Lordships have been paid in the form of light dues by shipowners in the past. There is a large surplus available to meet a temporary overdraft, if I may put it in that way, or a temporary deficit in the working of the lighthouse fund. That would give time for the inquiries which are going on, to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred, into finding methods of improving the efficiency of the lighthouse authorities; that is, Trinity House, the Northern Lights and the Irish Lights.
I was not going to say any more about the immediate effect, because it has been put so well by both noble Lords who have spoken. But there are just two issues which I thought I should bring to the notice of the House. The first is the position of the Irish Lights. It appears that an agreement made a very long time ago with the Irish Government of the time deals with the distribution of the lighthouse fund into which these dues are paid.
I am informed that the net result at present is an annual subsidy, in effect, towards the maintenance of Irish lights from the dues paid by ships coming to UK ports. In the majority of cases, those ships are making no use whatever of Irish lights. I am very much in favour of friendly co-operation between this Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. We have now set up a piece of machinery where such matters can be discussed in a friendly way. I suggest that the Government might consider taking up with the Irish Government the possibility of making some change in the agreement. It appears to work out at present in such a way as to take dues from British ships and add to the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Layton, so vividly described, merely for the maintenance of lights around the coast of Ireland.
The second point I should like to comment on is the question of naval ships which do not contribute to light dues. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, up to now the navy has been willing to pay what I believe to be £800,000 a year for the use of the Decca Navigation system. That is now being transferred to the lighthouse fund and apparently the navy is to get the benefits without paying at all. As I think has been mentioned and as I quite understand, naval ships today have modern equipment so that the need to rely upon the old fashioned and very valuable lighthouses is much less. However, that is just as true, as the noble Lord, Lord Layton, pointed out, of big ships that bring in iron ore or whatever it may be. Nearly all big ships are now supplied with the necessary equipment which makes them more or less free of the need to use lighthouses.
It seems to me that for the Government, through the Ministry of Defence, to allow naval ships not to make any contribution is quite wrong. If there is some principle involved, such as that the armed forces do not pay for those sorts of things, would it not be possible for the Ministry of Defence, in its Navy Vote, to include a small ex gratia contribution to the cost of

1211
the lights? Such a contribution would be completely lost in the defence budget. Nobody would ever see a contribution of £6 million or £7 million for the lights. And that might correct the difficulties we are up against. I leave those two suggestions with the Minister. I know that that is not his parish, so to speak. But the Government are one government, and he might like to pass those suggestions on.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for bringing this matter to our attention. I am sure, recalling our deliberations on the Pilotage Bill when I spoke on behalf of Trinity House, he will not expect me to follow him in his remarks this afternoon. I think that it is important to put the other side of the coin in the debate.
May I first correct the noble Lord, Lord Underhill? He said that Trinity House is one of a number of bodies which support total central funding. Trinity House does not support total central funding. It supports central funding for a smaller number of different items which I hope to enumerate.
The increase in light dues, which totals 13·85 per cent., is largely accounted for by having to pay for the Decca Navigation system. Decca was having a good many problems because its sets, which are normally hired from the company with a licence fee being paid, were being pirated by outside manufacturers. Therefore it was not able to collect the money due and felt that it could no longer continue the present set-up. Decca went to the Government, who probably had no alternative but to do what they have done and put the charge on to the central lighthouse fund.
Perhaps I may go back to figures for a moment. It has been mentioned that this increase of almost four times the rate of inflation has brought the total increase in light dues to 65 per cent. since 1980. That does not quite tally with the figures I have before me, which are based on a reliable scale of charges from one of our ports. From 1980 until the end of 1986 when figures were last available, light dues have increased by 46 per cent. compared with an overall RPI increase of 73 per cent. So perhaps this increase has been slightly overstated.
The individual cost with regard to various types of ship has been mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned a possible increase of £20,000. The noble Lord, Lord Layton, mentioned his problem with the British Steel bulk carriers. The noble Lord may well have a point. I am not well versed in bulk carriers. But the generally accepted cost of light dues for a large container ship is something like £15,000 a year.
It is probably not generally known that a finite number of payments is made in respect of each ship; in other words, there is a maximum of payments in any financial year. If a container ship is on regular transatlantic service it will have reached its limit on the inward leg of its fourth United Kingdom port of call.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the noble Lord said £15,000 a year, and not £15,000 a trip. Will he confirm that?
Lord Greenway: I beg your Lordships' pardon. I made a mistake and I apologise.
This ship will have paid its maximum after a fairly small number of voyages and on the remaining 26 occasions it will not have to pay at all. When we are referring to the complaints from the British Merchant Navy, for which I have a good deal of sympathy, its ships constitute only 10 per cent. or so of those calling at our ports today and it is mainly foreign vessels that bear the burden.
Before leaving the question of the container ship, perhaps I may say that the new international tonnage convention which came into effect in 1982 benefited container ships. The net tonnage on which these light dues are based fell considerably in respect of container ships, so they have benefited from that as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, called for all users to contribute to light dues. I know that Trinity House is generally in agreement with him on that point. He mentioned that fishing boats of a certain size are now to be included. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that regulations to that effect are about to go through.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I said that I understand that the larger fishing vessels are to be included in a new regulation. However, if that is to be the case the larger pleasure vessels should also be included. To my knowledge there has been no statement from the Government to that effect.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I was about to come to that point. Before I do perhaps I should mention the Royal Navy vessels and the other government-owned vessels such as the port auxiliary services, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, the cable ships and so on. It is true that these vessels have not paid light dues, but as far as Decca is concerned the navy has made contributions in the past. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked why there are not to be further payments. My understanding is that there has been some delay, but perhaps the Minister can confirm that it is still the intention of the navy to pay something towards the cost of the Decca service.
I am in a slightly difficult position, as some of your Lordships may realise, when referring to pleasure craft. I am a keen yachtsman and a spokesman from time to time for the Royal Yachting Association. The Minister, who is also a yachtsman, will appreciate my difficulty. Speaking as a yachtsman I would not mind paying a certain amount every year towards the cost of lights. However, from researches that have been carried out it has been found that it would not be cost-effective to include yachts because the amount of money obtained would be smaller than the cost of collecting it. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that. However, if that is so, could there not be a government contribution, bearing in mind the savings in centrally-funded search and rescue and anti-pollution costs that undoubtedly result from the provision by the General Lighthouse Authorities of an extensive and reliable system of aids to navigation?
The Irish question has been raised. I do not need to say any more than that Trinity House supports the general feeling behind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and others, that this burden which

1213
comes on to the central lighthouse fund should he picked up by the Government. I agree that it is an advance on what took place previously. The Irish Government are now paying 40 per cent. towards the costs. Certainly Trinity House feels that the rest of those moneys should come from the Government. I do not know from which department—perhaps the Foreign Office—but that part of the funding should not fall on the shipowners.
There is another funding which Trinity House feels should be picked up by the Government. It relates to the provision of aids to navigation to mark the International Maritime Organisation-supported traffic separation and routing schemes such as that in the Channel which costs the General Lighthouse Authorities £0·6 million a year. Trinity House did not ask for those duties. They were imposed arising from a government decision. A large number of ships pass through the Channel every day and use these aids to navigation—special lighthouses and buoys. Those ships do not necessarily come to British ports but continue on to the Continent. There might be an argument for them to pay a contribution towards the cost of those lights and I should like to know whether the Government have considered that at any time.
It is not generally realised that Trinity House spends about £1½ million a year on certain navigation marks which come within port limits. Again, that is a charge that might well be borne by the ports themselves but I understand that they are not at all happy to pick it up.
I conclude my remarks—perhaps somewhat lengthily—by trying to answer the criticism which has come from a number of quarters that the service provided by such bodies as Trinity House is not cost-effective. On that subject, I preface my remarks by saying that many people tend to refer to these light dues as Trinity House light dues. In fact they are government light dues and Trinity House only collects them. It is only fair to say that it is recognised throughout the world that Trinity House is in the forefront of lighthouse technology. It has a great deal of experience in these matters.
In order to try to answer some of the criticisms that have been levelled against Trinity House, perhaps I may first point out that, as a result of the recommendations of the Arthur Young report, in January 1985 Trinity House reconstituted its board, which is now made up of four members who are executive directors, elder brethren of Trinity House and master mariners with a great deal of experience, balanced by four non-executive members nominated by the Secretary of State, who bring to the board a wide range of expertise in commercial and administrative areas.
Trinity House has been pursuing a programme of modernisation and has been looking very carefully into the question of whether the number of lighthouses and navigation aids can be reduced. The noble Lord, Lord Layton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said that with modern navigation aids ships do not need lighthouses any more. They may well have a point there if one were talking about an English manned ship carrying excellent equipment. Unfortunately, all ships are not like that. Many of them—excellent ships when under the British flag—have now been sold to third world countries whose manning standards are not the same as ours.
1214
While the Pilotage Bill was passing through the House, I heard a number of stories from pilots who board these vessels. They say that either the equipment is not functioning or that the officers do not know how to use it. What do we all do when, as sometimes happens, there is a power-cut and the lights go out? We rush for a candle. I suggest that it may be slightly premature to talk about doing away with lighthouses altogether.
Be that as it may, Trinity House has been looking very carefully at the situation and since 1984 has discontinued the use of a number of lighthouses: Great Orme's Head, St. Mary's in Northumberland, Spurn Point and Withernsea light. In the near future it will be consulting on whether to close lighthouses at Souter, South Foreland and Moelfre Point in Wales. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, whose speech will follow mine, will confirm that I have pronounced them properly.
The same situation is occurring with light vessels. The number of light vessels operated by Trinity House has been reduced considerably over a number of years. At present there are 21 light vessels, but of those only nine are still manned. The rest have been automated, and I shall say a little more about automation in a moment.
These days buoys arc perhaps more important than ever when we have deep draught vessels operating in areas in which they have not normally operated. That is another vital part of the service that is provided by the general lighthouse authorities.
There have been calls to reduce the number of tenders in the lighthouse service. In 1948 Trinity House had nine tenders. In 1978, that figure had been reduced to five. Today, it is four. That is expected to reduce to three when the new tender, which is currently on its way from Korea, arrives at the end of the month. The new tender was ordered in Korea. That caused a tremendous outcry at the time. By ordering in Korea, Trinity House has saved £5 million on the cost of the ship. It looks to its costs all the time.
Criticisms of the automation programme, which have been mentioned, miss the point that in addition to the personnel and logistical support savings obtained, the cost of modernisation of the stations concerned, which is at least equal to the cost of automation, is avoided.
The General Council of British Shipping has been invited to comment on all automation proposals since the programme was instituted 11 years ago. Until recently, it expressed no objection, and indeed three years ago was pressing for the programme to be speeded up. Halting such a programme at this stage would lead to a great waste of resources, public money and the time spent in setting up an organisation geared to eventual total automation of all those major aids to navigation for which a need will continue to exist for the foreseeable future.
A new light dues working party has been set up to consider what technical amendments can be made to lighthouse rulings without the need for primary legislation. The working party members come from the Government, the three lighthouse authorities and Customs and Excise. Unfortunately, it does not include the General Council of British Shipping, which was given the opportunity of joining but declined, which is a pity.

1215
I apologise for going on so long, but I feel that, speaking as the lone voice against the general tenor of the debate, the opposite side of the case should be put. The burdens on shipowners and ports is perhaps not so great as has been generally expounded. In fact, a Department of Transport report recently concluded that one-seventh of the difference in cost between United Kingdom and European ports was attributable to light dues but that the other six-sevenths (or 85 per cent.) was due more to operating inefficiency. That is a consideration which should be borne in mind.
The Government could help with regard to the items to which I have referred. I feel that, that apart, the Government have gone the right way about this, but overall, in the long term, careful consideration must be given to the whole problem of light dues.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has been sailing, as he pointed out, a lonely sea. His voyage has been almost single-handed in nature and almost transatlantic in time and distance. As he is such a nice fellow and a friend of mine, I think that I should give the noble Lord some encouragement. There has been no criticism here of the elder bretheren of Trinity House. I have heard no noble Lord refer either to their service or to them in any derogatory way. All we have said is that changing technology may sometimes place changing responsibilities on them and perhaps we should look for means of payment other than the simple surcharge against the economy.
I am as grateful as the rest of the House to my noble friend Lord Underhill for having moved this Motion, for the manner in which he has presented it, and for having given Members such as the noble Lord, Lord Layton, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, the chance to respond to what the Government have done.
I wish to make two specific points. I believe that shipping, although much smaller than it was, is still fundamental to the British economy in two senses. It still carries to us those items which we need, and away from us those items that we need to sell and to distribute. Shipping is also the traditional barometer of international trade and the guidance for us. It is also important to say that there has never been an occasion when the British industrial economy has made an overseas credit balance of trade unless it has been led by shipping and the service sector. I have made that point in this House several times. It is worth making it quickly in this debate. When shipping does well then the economy generally seems to be in good heart.
However, I am more concerned about the imbalance in the maritime economy that is left to Britain rather than the balance of overseas trade. If anyone examines carefully the coastal ports of Britain they will see that the major ports along the western coast of Britain are dead or decadent or are trading under extreme difficulties. It is only on the South and South-East coast of Britain that ports which have containerised or prepared themselves for changes early are able to make a living. Even then margin of profit is such that they have to watch the cost of every container.
1216
I rise to speak in this debate as one who in the public/private argument was totally committed to the public sector of the economy. Arising out of that and out of my political connections, I became the head of a public enterprise in Britain and have had the responsibility over a number of years of running a public enterprise. I now have the responsibility—and it is a difficult and delicate one—of running a small company, the oldest public company in Wales, with 113 years of strike-free trading out of the harbour at Milford Haven. Having been the only port in Britain to trade throughout the general strike in ports fairly recently, Milford Haven is not now trading at all because it is having to restructure itself as a company in order to meet this delicate balance about which I have talked between profit and loss. Despite massive efforts to the contrary, we have had difficulties. We are restructuring to meet them. Every copper is important, and every cargo is vital. Every ship that comes into such a port is an essential cargo in local as well as in general terms.
When we see a surcharge made against the port, and against all the ports of Britain at this time, it seems to be illogical. The Secretary of State for Wales—who is a political opponent and a personal friend—is bending every effort to try to recreate within the dying ports of Wales a system that will support and help them and the community based upon them to re-equip. I cannot understand why his associate Minister, his right honourable friend, should be putting through legislation—perhaps for the best of reasons—that cuts across what he is doing.
The port at Milford Haven has become an enterprise zone. Every effort has been made to attract other ship-related and port and sea-related activities such as leisure and others to the area. However, in this country we pay very great service to our shipping, both naval and merchant marine, during times of war and national crises and we forget about their problems in times of peace. The same applies to the ports and harbours that rely upon them.
We therefore see a conflict between the Government's best intention to restructure these ports as they face difficulties and an academic exercise—which is an accountancy exercise—to pay within a sector for a service that is vital. I believe the service to be vital. I believe the service to be an excellent one and the envy of a great many people.
I have given my personal opinion. Let me quote the opinion given in the memorandum of the British Ports' Association. The noble Lord, Lord Layton, stated this so expertly, in his reference to valuable help. The memorandum states:
"1/7th of the overall cost difference between UK ports and Continental ports can be attributed to light dues, which are paid by carriers using our ports.
Ports often fix an overall rate per container handled which on average absorbs the port authority's fixed costs and thus avoids penalising a ship arriving with a small number of containers. But light dues of up to £20,000 per visit for a large ship clearly have a deterrent effect on the handling of even quite significant part cargoes … A similar argument, scaled down, applies to smaller ships".
As I have said, the Minister's colleague is trying to rationalise what is happening and to give some aid to the stricken ports. This series of surcharges hits a specific port, Milford Haven, in three ways; for

1217
example, it surcharges large oil tankers. We had hoped that the oil tankers in Milford Haven would be not simply the beginning of a new future for the port, but a new future for the whole of west Wales and other related industries which would have taken the Welsh economy forward. In fact, as that industry finds international problems making it revise its thinking, we have charges which affect large ships—and we are talking about multi tankers—more than they do most, certainly at the same percentage. The surcharges also affect smaller vessels tramping in part cargoes. We would love to have the bottom end of the shipping of Great Britain tramping into Milford Haven with part cargoes—it would be the answer to our difficulties.
A third way in which we are surcharged is quite criminal. When our British fishing industry is struggling to make ends meet, and when the EC seems almost designed to defeat Britain's trawler fishing fleet, here we find further charges on trawlers of a certain length. I did not intend to say this; but in view of what has been said, I say that if there are large pleasure vessels going to sea out of small ports and they are vessels that arc bought as a result of great effort on the part of the people who run them, who carefully assess whether or not they can afford them, then surely it is equitable that they should pay a charge towards the light dues. The trawler skippers, or the small fishing companies with vessels of the same length, have to add to their costs by doing so.
Finally I say that light dues should be removed altogether and the service should be funded, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, out of general taxation.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I should like briefly to support and thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for raising this matter. The shipping industry has been under the greatest pressure for several years, with freight rates reducing by 20 per cent. over the last two or three years. I do not think the industry wants to have subsidy, but it faces a world where the Russians are known to run ships at less than cost and various other states run state subsidised fleets. The British fleet has to compete against this situation. This is fairly well indicated by the numbers of ships over 500 gross registered tonnes. Over the last five years they have reduced from 1,100 to around 700. While the industry may not cry out for subsidy, it can do without handicap.
Most of the points have been well covered on this matter. There is a dispute concerning the matter of inflation. The figures I have show that the charges have gone up by 65 per cent. while inflation has been 47 per cent. It appears totally anomalous that the British merchant fleet should subsidise another country, in as much as we subsidise Ireland to something like 60 per cent. of their costs. If that is so and we can afford to do that, why do we not subsidise a few other countries? I see no reason why a country which wants to go independent cannot be independent. If it does not want independence then let us carry on running it.
The Arthur Young consultancy stated that much of the economic management of the lighthouses could be improved and it mentioned that in Sweden no less
1218
than six times as many lights as in this country were serviced per man. In addition to that, in Sweden the men undertake various other tasks as well.
There is also the matter of the return. It has been suggested that many of the capital sums invested are for projects with perhaps a 15-year return. There is even a project mentioned that has a 34-year return. That kind of return would not be acceptable to commercial firms. A comprehensive study should be carried out immediately and certainly before the rates are increased. Perhaps we should think in terms of a little privatisation to make it more effective.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask him whether he was referring just to the Russian merchant fleet or talking about light dues in general, because many Russian ships visit our ports these days and they all pay light dues when they come here.
Lord Gisborough: No, my Lords. I meant that the Russian fleet does not operate within the same cost disciplines as the British fleet must operate.
6.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we have had an interesting, useful and wide-ranging discussion on an issue which I recognise commands a substantial degree of feeling in the shipping and ports industries as well as in your Lordships' House.
I fully understand the concern that has arisen over the size of the increase in light dues which the Government have felt it necessary to impose this year. But I can assure your Lordships that the most careful thought was given to this matter, and the decision was not taken without having the fullest regard to the representations received.
The regulations provide for an increase of about 13·85 per cent. in the light dues scale. That increase, self-evidently, is above the rate of inflation. Two factors have unfortunately coincided to make a large increase unavoidable this year. First, since 1981–82, light dues have steadily declined in real terms. Even with the increase that is the subject of today's debate they are in real terms still over 33 per cent. down from the peak in the latter part of 1975–76 and 18 per cent. lower than in 1981–82. That in itself is a considerable achievement and one not to be lightly dismissed. That reduction was achieved by drawing heavily on the General Lighthouse Fund's reserves. In fact, by the end of this year the reserves will be down to about £12 million, or about two months outgoings. But we have reached the limits of what we can prudently do in that way, and some increase in revenues is inescapable.
The increase could have been held at about 7 per cent. but for the need to find a new way of financing the UK transmitters of the Racal Decca Navigator system, which can no longer be provided commercially. That was the subject of a brief debate in your Lordships' House on 4th December last, when the House approved the General Lighthouse Authorities (Beacons: Hyperbolic Systems) Order 1986. I was glad to note at that time that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, recognised that this seemed to be a very

1219
sensible and useful order. I am sorry that he has changed his mind. It had the practical effect of enabling the authorities to draw on the fund to finance the services which the Racal Decca Company is now providing under contract with them. The cost to the fund of this additional item is now estimated to be about £3·7 million in the current financial year.
This additional charge forms a substantial element of the increase in general light dues—almost half in gross terms. Part of those costs are expected to be covered by a contribution from the Ministry of Defence for the Royal Navy—several noble Lords have queried that, but I can confirm that that is the case—and the proposed extension of light dues to fishing vessels. Incidentally, the proposed increases to fishing vessels will be the subject of regulations to be brought before the House in due course.
The procedures for reviewing the budgets of the general lighthouse authorities include very close consultation with the Lights Advisory Committee, which strongly represents the interests of the shipping and ports industries. As an alternative to a large increase in light dues, the Lights Advisory Committee urged that there should be a freeze on the authorities' new capital expenditure. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who has the statutory control of the General Lighthouse Fund, considered this proposal. But he decided against it because he thought it would dislocate the lighthouse automation programme and generate nugatory costs.
That point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who explained it in greater detail. I realise that the Lights Advisory Committee would wish to see dramatic reductions in the authorities' running costs. But I think they recognise that these would only be feasible if there were corresponding reductions in the services provided. We would certainly consider proposals for such reductions within the context of our international obligations for safety at sea. But such changes—which would be for the authorities to implement—cannot come about quickly. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about the membership of the Lights Advisory Committee and why the employees of the general lighthouse authorities were not members of it. That is not a matter for the Government. The membership of that committee is decided by themselves and not by Ministers.
In the Government's view the immediate priority is for the costs of the lighthouse services to be contained to secure efficiency and economy in the existing operations. To this end, we continue to set demanding targets for the authorities' costs. Over £1·3 million was cut from their running cost budgets for 1986–87, and we have set austere cash growth targets: only 3 per cent. for the current year and no growth at all in 1988–89. Nil growth will effectively mean a cut of about 3 per cent. (at £1·3 million) in planned running costs next year, leaving the authorities to meet pay awards and other extra costs within a tight cash limit. It is to the authorities' credit that they accept the challenge to reduce costs, and indeed Trinity House has significantly bettered the targets we have set it. I congratulate it on the very positive efforts it is making to achieve savings.
1220
Further major savings are expected to result from the present study of the general lighthouse authorities' tender vessel requirements to which the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred. This study, which is being undertaken by independent consultants of international repute, is at an advanced state. I do not want to anticipate their report this evening, but I hope that the work will result in significant savings in ship procurement costs with obvious benefits to the future level of light dues.
Much has been said in this debate, and in the representations made to the Government, about transferring the costs of the lighthouse services to the Exchequer. I can hold out no prospect of that. The Government think it right that, within the limits of administrative practicability, the costs of these services should be met by those who use them. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill's honourable friend, the Member for Wigan, the shadow shipping Minister in another place, was reported to have said in Lloyd's List that a Labour Government would meet the full cost of lighthouse services from the Exchequer. It is easy to see how a Labour Government could add £34 billion to the taxpayers' burden when they have such a cavalier approach to the sum of £60 million, which for my part I regard as very substantial. I wonder whether my noble friends Lord Layton and Lord Gisborough might not care to give that fact a little thought.
We believe that the principle that the user should pay is a valid principle, and we see no reason to depart from it. There is no evidence that the light dues regime is harmful to our economy or to the ports industry as a whole. I accept that some liner container traffic and part-cargo traffic in some circumstances may be diverted from a UK port to a near Continental port for trans-shipment, but the reasons for such routings are complex and go beyond light dues. As noble Lords have said, some six-sevenths of the cost differential between UK and Continental ports for this kind of traffic are due to reasons other than light dues.
The figures do not support the arguments that light dues damage trade. The latest published figures show a new record throughput of 451 million tonnes was achieved by GB ports in 1985. Non-bulk cargoes moving through British ports have increaed by an annual average of 4·3 per cent. over the last five years. That is a better rate than has been achieved by Dunkirk, Le Havre, Rotterdam, Bremen and Hamburg—ports often quoted as examples of facilities with greater financial advantages compared with their UK competitors. Light dues in 1985–86 amounted to only 0·04 per cent. of the value of UK imports and exports. The ports continue to report an improving financial position, and a recent BPA survey shows that pre-tax profits rose in 1985–86 from £41 million to £79 million on a turnover of£537 million, coupled with an improved average return on capital of 8·2 per cent.
Felixstowe, as our leading container port, reports box trade up by 23·6 per cent. in 1986—despite the claimed disadvantages of the light dues system for container traffic. The UK is, I accept, in a minority within the EC in pursuing this policy. But it has a longer coastline and a greater number of ports than most EC members. Within the membership of the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities a rather different picture emerges. In a 1983 survey (and

1221
the position is unlikely to have changed significantly since then) about 45 per cent. of the member states relied on dues of some kind as the sole source of finance for their service. Only about 36 per cent. of member states relied on general taxation or subsidy, and even some of these respondents to the survey charged light or port dues to some degree.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and others I see little prospect of developing an EC policy on financing lights. Countries such as Belgium or Holland would have little interest in subsidising UK costs; and in any event we would consider EC funding inappropriate as it could only be achieved by a charge on public funds via the EC budget.
Retention of the light dues system necessarily means that substantial charges fall on commercial shipping. I recognise that a dues structure, substantially unchanged from the turn of the century, undoubtedly contains anomalies which we should address. We have undertaken a detailed study of the feasibility of technical changes and I believe some constructive and helpful reforms will emerge before long.
Against that background it is difficult to argue that light dues are a general handicap to the trade of this country. As I have indicated, we are prepared to look at anomalies within the system, and the way it affects different classes of ships, and to remedies and reforms where practicable. I trust the shipping and ports industries will co-operate in this task, recognising the differences between us on the overall funding issue.
Several noble Lords have suggested that light dues should be widened to embrace pleasure craft. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, asked me whether the cost of gathering light dues from those sort of craft would exceed revenue. I have to say that we think it would, given that the maximum charge we could reasonably impose would be low and because pleasure craft are not at sea very often.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the Minister tell me how he can reconcile that with the surcharge on the small fishing fleet?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Very easily, my Lords, because all fishing vessels have to be registered and therefore we have an easy way of collecting from them.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, asked why we did not co-operate with the Irish Republic in these matters. We have made considerable progress with the Republic and we have negotiated a cost sharing agreement with the Irish Government under which they will pay a steadily increasing supplement to Irish light dues revenue. By 1989–90 the Irish will pay one-half of the costs incurred by the Commissioners of Irish Lights in the Republic or about three times the amount that would otherwise be paid into the GLF from Irish dues alone. We believe this agreement is a satisfactory settlement of a problem that has long existed, I think since 1922.
It is clear that the Government are not going to agree with the shipping and ports industries and indeed with the majority of your Lordships this afternoon about light dues. But there is a great deal on which we can agree in this area and I look forward with confidence
1222
to their co-operation, and that of the general lighthouse authorities, in achieving major cost reductions in the lighthouse service.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for having raised the matter this afternoon. It is a question that needs airing even at this rather late hour on the eve of our Easter break. I can only say to the noble Lord and other noble Lords that I wish them all a happy Easter and a pleasant holiday.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, because it will be valuable to have his statement on record. It would be wrong to abuse your Lordships' House by giving a detailed response to what he has said but in the light of just one or two points that have been made I think I must make some comments.
First of all, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Parry answered some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, because there was no criticism at all in my speech of Trinity House, whose services I generally admire. In fact only this morning—
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I was not implying that the noble Lord had criticised Trinity House in any way. I was implying criticism from elsewhere, which has been published.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has made that quite clear. Only this morning I had a letter from the Deputy Master of Trinity House, giving its answer to certain points put by the General Council of British Shipping. I deliberately cut out of my speech any points which might cause an argument between the general council and Trinity House. I wished to avoid that because I think most of us appreciate the work that is done by Trinity House.
The Minister said that he noted that I had changed my mind on the Decca system. I have not changed my mind at all. When the matter was introduced I thought it was a very good system to have; it was an advance. At that stage I think he would have objected if I had used the occasion to advance the case that the whole of the light dues ought to be transferred to a national charge. I had the opportuntity this afternoon of doing so. I have not changed my mind on the value of the system at all.
The last point I want to make concerns the noble Lord's criticism of my honourable friend Roger Stott in the other House on Labour's programme. The reason why we are concerned about making this a national charge is the same as that advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Layton, and others who have spoken today. It is in the interests of British ports, British shipping and British trade. Those are the main reasons why we wish to have this transferred to a national charge.
However, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply because, as I say, it will be valuable to have it on record. I am also grateful to all the other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate today, which I think has been a very useful and worthwhile one.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Adjournment
Lord Denham: My Lords, before moving that the House do now adjourn, I should like on behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House to wish a happy Easter and a pleasant and restful Recess to noble Lords in all other parts of the House. Also, on behalf of the whole House, I think, I should like to wish exactly the same to all the people who work at this end of the Palace of Westminister and who serve us so well and so patiently all through the sitting days.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord the Chief Whip—this is the second time in two days that I seem to have joined him in debating matters—in the good wishes he has extended to all Members of the House for a restful Recess. I should particularly like to join him in his remarks concerning the members of the staff. In that I am sure we would include not only the members of staff who we see on the Principal Floor but the other members of staff who are working at all hours of the day and night to look after us, to ensure the security of the building and to ensure that we are fed during the not-so-late hours with which we have had to cope so far during this Session of Parliament. I hope that all your Lordships will have a peaceful Recess.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches should like also to wish everybody a very happy Easter. I think we are all ready for it. It is the latest Easter that I can remember and it has been a long road since Christmas. We are all very glad to be getting away. Of course we should also like to join in the thanks to the staff who attend in this Chamber. I should particularly like to mention the catering staff, who do an extremely good job and without whom life in this House would be very difficult indeed. We are very grateful to them.
House adjourned for the Easter Recess at a quarter before seven o'clock until Monday, 27th April.

  LITERACY AMONG THE UNEMPLOYED
  LITERACY AMONG THE UNEMPLOYED
  TRIDENT II
  TRIDENT II
  CRUISE MISSILES
  CRUISE MISSILES
  HEALTH EDUCATION COUNCIL DIRECTOR'S REPORT
  HEALTH EDUCATION COUNCIL DIRECTOR'S REPORT
  MARLBOROUGH HOUSE: REFURBISHMENT ARRANGEMENTS
  MARLBOROUGH HOUSE: REFURBISHMENT ARRANGEMENTS
  IRISH SAILORS AND SOLDIERS LAND TRUST BILL
  IRISH SAILORS AND SOLDIERS LAND TRUST BILL
  NATIONAL METEOROLOGICAL CO-ORDINATING UNIT ANNUAL REPORT
  NATIONAL METEOROLOGICAL CO-ORDINATING UNIT ANNUAL REPORT
  MINERAL EXTRACTION IN NATIONAL PARKS
  MINERAL EXTRACTION IN NATIONAL PARKS
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981: MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT GUIDELINES
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981: MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT GUIDELINES
  ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: GOVERNMENT FUNDING
  ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: GOVERNMENT FUNDING